Monday, 8 September 2008

Thank You, Donal and ... Goodbye

Thank you for replying at the third time of asking (2 comments on your blog and 1 blog post here).

Goodbye not because I'm leaving blogging behind but because this will be my last reference to your original post in the meantime.

So as not to fill up the top of this post the full history can be viewed at the end  - below the black line.


Basically you asserted that Oprah Winfrey was being racist by not interviewing the white Sarah Palin before the November elections.  Because I saw no evidence that Winfrey's refusal was linked to colour I asked that you produce evidence to support your contention or, failing that, withdraw your post and apologise.

After three requests you stated (see below the line for your full comment):

"Oprah has only ever backed one candidate publicly like this: the black one. Her outright refusal to interview Gov Palin shows Oprah to be prejudiced. You may wish to interpret it otherwise,..."

I assume that this is as much evidence as you will provide and so let's look at what you say.  You are saying, please correct me if I'm wrong,

Oprah - black - publicly supports one candidate - Obama, black.

Oprah  - black - won't interview Palin - white - before the election

Ergo Oprah is prejudiced and racist.


Now consider the following thought experiment:

You  - white - (You are white aren't you, Donal?  All I have to go by is the header to your blog.  If you're not white my little example doesn't work) - support McCain / Palin - both white.

You - white - do not support Obama - black

You - white - criticise Obama - black

Now using the same logic which you use to assert Oprah is racist, one could say that you are prejudiced and racist too in how you regard Obama. Now I would never suggest this of you because the logic train in my little experiment is as flawed as is your logic, given the evidence you adduce, in describing Oprah Winfrey as prejudiced and racist.


In your comment you also state:

"Calum: you're under the mistaken belief I care what you think. I don't. "

I don't expect you to care what I think. My reason for following up on your original post is that the allegation you make against Oprah Winfrey is serious and I believe that such allegations should be supported by evidence and that your readership should have access to that evidence so that they can judge whether you have "made" your case.

You go on to say,

"It's really very simple. If you don't like me or what I say, go away and read someone else's blog."

The blog world would be a boring place if we only visited blogs with whose content we knew, in advance, we would agree.  I read, and will continue to read, many blogs other than yours but I will continue to visit you and to comment when I see fit.


Finally you state in your comment,

"That [solving my family's family mental health needs] strikes me as more important than hectoring me like a nutter..."

Solving my family's mental health problems is massively important to me but I and others in similar circumstances  are entitled to have hobbies and relaxation.

I'm very sorry, Donal, and surprised that you feel I have been hectoring  - bullying and intimidating - you at all, far less "like a nutter...".  I asked you politely three times to produce evidence in support of your serious allegation against Oprah Winfrey.  Had you done so after my first comment we could have reached this point several days ago.  I fear that you are much more sensitive than most in the blogosphere if you find those three polite requests intimidating.

Anyway, as I said at the start, thank you, Donal and goodbye...... for the moment.



You posted about Oprah Winfrey on Friday  - as shown below

Blaney Oprah screengrab post

Your link takes readers here at (also see immediately below).

Blaney Oprah tmz screengrab2

There is no mention here of Palin's whiteness being involved in a decision not to interview her before the election.

This tmz page links to The Drudge Report here (and also below)

Blaney oprah Drudge screengrab3


There is no mention in The Drudge Report about colour being the reason for Oprah not interviewing Palin now.

I, therefore, commented as shown below, a comment which you show but do not answer. 

Blaney Oprah JB Comment

I ask again.

Given that neither your post nor your links contain any evidence for colour being at the heart of Oprah's decision not to interview Palin now, why do you assert this to be the case?


Why do you:

-  title your post "Too white for Oprah"

-  state in the body of your post "Sarah Palin's too white to be interviewed on your show"

-  include "racism" as a label

-  include "hypocrisy" as a label?


Come on, Donal , you're not normally slow in saying what you think.

What is your evidence, Donal?

If you have evidence, please display it now.

If you have no evidence then you should delete your post immediately and post an apology to Oprah Winfrey.


What is it to be, Donal?  Evidence or apology?


With your not having replied, I commented a second time and now you did reply.  Both my and your comments are shown below.

CC final comment

after which you replied.

DB final comment


  1. Rude man. That last sentence was totally uncalled for.

  2. Yes I am with Jmb I am most unhappy about his last sentence about you!

  3. His response was out of order. Not exactly entering into the spirit of the Bloghound comunity.

  4. jmb, CherryPie, Jams

    Thanks for your support. Another commenter was just as cutting:
    'JuliaM said...

    "Calum: you're under the mistaken belief I care what you think."

    He's also under the mistaken belief that anyone else cares what he thinks, too...

    "I thought your energies were focused on solving your family's mental health needs? That strikes me as more important than hectoring me like a nutter..."

    Ouch! Good shot... ;)

    10:11 AM

    Donal's and JuliaM's comments are very mild compared with those I have seen elsewhere and I am untroubled by them. I was half-expecting some form of riposte of the type seen but I am comforted by the knowledge that the perpetrators, blinded by their smartness, tarnish themselves rather than the intended target(s).

    I am not prepared to follow suit.

  5. Donal is a complete and utter ****. This is mild for him. He recently blamed the murder of the Foster family on the government and had a jibe at the expense of a dead four year old.

  6. m.j.

    Just read latest post about 4yo. Why am I not surprised?