In our up is down and down is up electoral season, language frequently loses meaning or words and phrases require new definitions. We’re here to help you wade through the brave new world of linguistics underscored by Roger Stone‘s response after CNN banned the Trump-supporting guest and former advisor from appearing on the network after Media Matters pointed out a series of hateful Tweets from Stone aimed mainly at contributors Ana Navarro and Roland Martin.
Here is the full text of Stone’s response, provided to Politico.
In an email, Stone said CNN’s decision “smacks of Soviet style censorship.”
“I am an unapologetic critic of Ana Navarro because I question her qualifications to opine on any political topic — she is a ‘Republican strategist’ who has never actually worked on any campaign beyond an honorific title,” Stone said.
“I am politically incorrect but it appears CNN is bowing to pressure from the Clinton apparatus — not very appropriate for an supposedly unbiased news network,” he added.
Let us break it down for you with our annotated guide below.
1. “Smacks of Soviet style censorship”
Little known fact: CNN is a governmental regime, so this comparison to the governmental regime that was the former Soviet Union is entirely apt.
2. “I am an unapologetic critic of Ana Navarro”
Stone has, in various Tweets, called Navarro “dumber than dogshit,”
part of a “moron fest,” a “pompous shithead” and “abusive diva.” (His tweets about Martin fell along similarly deplorable lines.)
The next time you happen to be caught delivering a slew of ad hominem attacks, explain that, in point of fact, they are unapologetic critiques. You are a critic. Critics gonna criticize–with hateful sandbox invective.
3. Stone is “politically incorrect.”
The inverse of that phrase is, of course, politically correct, a short jump to “PC culture.” We could probably fill an entire scroll deconstructing that phrase, but we misplaced our quill. In short, we understand politically incorrect in this instance to mean the ability to use hateful words and phrases without having to deal with any attendant consequences.
4. Stone concludes that CNN’s decision is “not very appropriate for an supposedly unbiased news network.”
This one is easy. Being unbiased requires CNN–or any news organization that, in theory, can interview anyone out of the billions of people that exist on this planet–to make sure it gives racists, bigots and xenophobes the public platform they believe they are entitled too.