Page 1 of 1

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 6:09 pm
by whisper
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
1:47:00 AM EST

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy

I must preface this entry by making two specific disclaimers:

1) HATE is a strong word, and should not be used unless you absolutely mean it.

2)I am NOT, by any means, a Michael Jackson fan or supporter.

Very few TV journalists insense me. I always have kept the perspective that I, as the viewer, am the one in control. If I don't like a reporter's slant, I can always tune into another network for another perspective. Objectivity in network or cable news journalism has seemingly become an antequated notion.

Networks have their individual political agendas, and the hosts of any given news talk show use their shows as forums for personal diatribe, rather than open discussion of fact and analysis of information.

I said that when I didn't like a journalist, I simply changed the channel. That's not always true. Sometimes, I sit and watch one particular journalist, just to see how much further she can push her foot into her big mouth.

Nancy Grace, the Court TV commentator and Headline News host is the one member of the media I openly despise... No, not despise.. HATE. As I said, hate is a strong word. Only use it if you mean it. Well, do you think I mean it when I say: The mere sight of the woman makes me want to pull out her 60's throwback THAT GIRL flip 'do - Bleached strand by bleached strand. I mean it.

This vapid, judgemental, talentless bimbette presides over her Court TV and Headline News programs with the journalistic finesse of a lemming over a cliff... or the delicacy of a sledgehammer - Take your pick

She uses both of her network platforms to act as judge, jury and executioner of Michael Jackson, or any defendant in the trial du jour.

Grace has beat the anti-MJ drum since day one. She behaves as if she has a personal stake in Jackson's conviction. Every day, she picks apart Jackson's behavior, dress, demeanor and asserts his guilt before she's even begun to allow her expert panel of guests to analyze the testimony in the trial.

When any of these guests give the Jackson defense any credence, or perhaps cast any shadow of reasonable doubt upon the case, Grace becomes a madwoman: She Jekyll and Hydes herself into an argumentative, rude and dismissive fishwife. She's in the business of tele-lynching any and all defendants she finds guilty. Any neighsayers are an intolerable inconvenience for Grace. If you are in the tele-court of Nancy Grace, Heaven and Clarence Darrow help you if you don't follow the Grace party line.

Of course, she did the same thing to Scott Peterson....and she was right. I'll give her that. However, Grace commits one cardinal sin. A sin for someone in the legal profession, but a raging miscarriage of ethics for a journalist - She convicts before the trial is over. Sometimes before it even begins. If she assumes someone is guilty, she goes after them tooth and nail.

If Grace doesn't like you, she will do her damndest to convict you in the court of public opinion. Sadly, it's dilletantes like Grace who have that power in our slanted media.

Doing a bit more research on Grace's general abuse of her media position, I ran across a few posts on several websites that beautifully analyze my point in far more concise, and clear terms than I ever could. I quote them for you here:

"Grace is so repellent a figure that she serves a useful purpose; she helps us see the moral and intellectual corruption spreading through our mainstream “news” culture. It’s increasingly clear that (Larry) King himself is uncomfortable with her rancid behavior."

"Nancy Grace: The Queen Of Sycophant Adulation.

On February 21, 2003, Nancy Grace accused Michael Jackson of being a sexual pervert on national television, and she did it so explicitly, that if this demagogue and CNN are not sued for slandering Michael Jackson, his attorneys are sleeping on the switch.

In particular, Nancy Grace said:
"Well, these kids know him real up close, too, in bed with him. And, Larry, what this child alleges is shocking and incredible and so much of this affidavit... But I'm telling you, this boy, two-thirds of this can be corroborated by other people. So why would he lie about the molestation part? It is in graphic detail. It just seems true."

The suggestion that uncontested, innocuous facts are proof of sexual molestation charges, is an absolutely preposterous, slimey tactic that is used to assume credibility where none exists. People who use extraneous observations to create the impression that outrageous allegations are credible, are essentially desperate liars, and if demagogues like Nancy Grace are not sued, they will continue to abuse their power.


The extreme gap between the truth and the rhetoric of a demagogue like Nancy Grace, speaks for itself.

GRACE: Well, it's my understanding that there was a very, very long and intense police investigation that the file is, as they say, inactive because, I believe, the victim did not want to go to court. That's what I think. That's what I can deduce. And we all know that there was a civil settlement of millions and millions of dollars. And interestingly enough, on February the 10th, there was a response by the Jackson camp to this affidavit being made public online. It didn't negate the truth of the affidavit, it just simply attacked the breach of the confidentiality agreement

TRUTH: The so called victim's family was after MONEY not JUSTICE. The victim did not have a case to go to court with. Clearly, the D.A. did not refuse to prosecute the case because evidence that Michael Jackson sexually abused children, existed.

GRACE: And you know what, Larry? I think that if a father had tried to extort Michael Jackson for millions of dollars, you want to tell me he would not have been arrested or charges filed? At the beginning -- and the panel laughed when I brought this up, specifically the Jackson family lawyer. But the Jackson camp changed their stories so many times. First, they said this was an extortion attempt; they would never pay. Then, suddenly, as police began to develop evidence, they did pay millions of dollars... Right. And I'll make it quick, Larry. I've got in my hand again the affidavit of Jordy, not the cancer victim. This is another boy that had sleepovers with Jackson. You said that thiswas all about extortion. Question to you: Why wasn't this child's father prosecuted for extortion if you claim that was why, what this was all about?

TRUTH: The police SHOULD HAVE charged Michael Jackson's adult accusers with extortion. Nancy Grace likes to blame Michael Jackson becausethe police didn't do their job properly. Nancy Grace cannot blame Michael Jackson for the fact that the police did not do their job right. Why would anybody expect the police to help a "weirdo" like Michael Jackson? Moreover, if, as Nancy claims, the police had developed credible evidence to support outrageous charges of criminal, sexual misconduct, why didn't they file criminal charges? After all, Nancy Grace was "talking about oral sex, manual masturbating, taking baths together", not about a harmless sleepover."

Grace has taken her passion as a prosecutor and misdirected it. She is more about being RIGHT than she is about being FAIR.

On a personal note, I don't know how to feel about the Jackson case. I HOPE it isn't true.. I fear it is. That being said, I won't be burning Michael Jackson Voodoo dolls in effigy until the verdict is read.

Nancy Grace should be so insightful. Judging a defendant before the evidence has been presented is dangerous, especially in the media. The media wields more power of persuasion in how a case is percieved than any court record.

If it's presented with a slant or an agenda, chances are, the viewer will assume that it is presented as fact, not opinion.

As long as so-called journalists like Grace are given the opportunity to hold court, to try 'em and fry 'em on TV, we will never see the rise of objective journalism again.

Even without the Nancy Graces of the world, will we ever see untainted, fair and balanced journalism?

I doubt it. It's not journalism anymore.. It's Reality Entertainment. The masses love it. They consume it greedily.. and the supply will meet the demand.

I remember how my grandmother would refer to ABC's Sam Donaldson as "Damn Sonaldson." When she'd grow so perturbed over him and whatever commentary he was making, this otherwise demure ladywould flip the bird at the TV. I'm sure Sam didn't notice, but it made her feel better.

Well, this bird's for you Nancy.

Source: http://journals.aol.com/realitycheckmco ... tries/1158

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 6:39 pm
by Tabloid Junkie
Thanks. I added a comment on that journal.

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 4:22 pm
by privacy
Ooooh I liketh. Thanks Whisper :)

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:22 am
by floacist
After the Nancy bashing how can the author of that say

On a personal note, I don't know how to feel about the Jackson case. I HOPE it isn't true.. I fear it is.
I dont get after the whole Nancy VS the Truth thing you can still ponder about this mess.

I did like this alot however;
The mere sight of the woman makes me want to pull out her 60's throwback THAT GIRL flip 'do - Bleached strand by bleached strand. I mean it.
I agree:)

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:24 pm
by dangerousgurl829
that's very well said & explained!..thanx for posting.

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:43 am
by mysteriousone
:o How'd I miss this thread? :blink:

I'd like to see Nancy Disgrace's face after reading this! :lol Great article! :thumbsup

Mysti!

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:04 pm
by CJJluvsMJJ
He she bitching about something stupid again?
By the way,great article!:thumbsup Good job,Miss Adminstrator!:rollin

The Amazing Grace-lessness of Nancy (March 29 2005)

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:50 am
by CJJluvsMJJ
[QUOTE=mysteriousone;179367]:o How'd I miss this thread? :blink:

I'd like to see Nancy Disgrace's face after reading this! :lol Great article! :thumbsup

Mysti![/QUOTE]
It was a good story!