No one wants to hear from Diane "Ugly as all Hell Hag" Demon, and HLN should have gotten that message by now. I mean, she's not exactly the first person to come to mind when one thinks of journalistic integrity (in fact, she's at the bottom of my list, along with Martin Bashir and other people who have been conclusively proven beyond all doubt to be liars and manipulators). Why HLN (or any other network, for that matter) would want to ally themselves with such a sorry b---ch is completely beyond me...or at least, it would be if we were plainly speaking in the theoretical without any other factors playing in.
However, it is clear, what they intend on doing. The truth is plain and simple--HLN obviously does not care for journalistic integrity when they hire their workers (evidence: that rabid hag Nancy DisGrace being basically the face of the network, along with that unsightly and equally biased woman, Joy(less) Behar). What they do care about, however, are ratings, and what sort of person could do a better job at giving them the sensationalism and utter chaos they crave than tabloid pseudo-journalist Diane Demon? It's a perfect strategy, looking at it from that angle, and no doubt many lay people (meaning not particularly brilliant non-Michael Jackson fans)will fall for the "name appeal" Headline News enjoys (it doesn't exactly sound like a tabloid, especially with their CNN affiliation, so they have the "name prestige" pure tabloid shows like The Insider lack). Even though they are the "news and views" channel, the CNN affiliation would imply at least some degree of professionalism, and people would be right to assume such things, theoretically speaking. This all changes in the practical and evident truth (the only truth that matters, by the way), once one has a closer look at exactly who makes it onto HLN, and WHY.
I would not be surprised if they had planned this move all along, merely hiring Vogel as a stand-in before this "panel" voted on a wannabe journalist with horrible credentials (actually, no credentials whatsoever, since she doesn't even have a degree in journalism) instead. One would normally be willing to pardon this if, and only if, the person in question proved himself to be a competent and balanced journalist. As we all know (and as evidence shows, more importantly), Dimond has never been anything of the sort. Her entire career culminated because of the 2005 Michael Jackson trial, and we know what a shoddy job she did at covering it, so that doesn't exactly speak volumes on her competence. Moreover, even taking that very important tidbit out of the equation, her history leaves much to be desired. Prior to the Michael trial, she was best known for being on Hard Copy, a now cancelled celebrity tabloid show, and Extra, another of the same stock. Presently, she is only really seen on Entertainment Tonight, yet another tabloid show with zero substance. Overall, her history does not paint a very impressive picture, even if we were to ignore her massive journalistic transgressions.
Everyone knows even the most pedestrian of chimps would probably be overqualified for the "niche" of being a tabloid reporter, since the profession itself requires no brain and all talk, so the tabloid shows choose to hire Diane Demon instead. However, they overlook the fact that, even among tabloid pseudo-journalists, she's still not the sharpest tool in the shed (and her peers aren't exactly what I'd call brilliant). Knowing this, one would think she'd at least have sense enough to not attempt to fake stories for profit (see: Canadian boy incident). No such luck, apparently. Despite the giant journalistic transgressions she's committed, Dimond is still permitted to call her sorry self a "journalist" solely because she attracts ratings ($$$) with her asinine Michael Jackson "news coverage." Could you imagine the backlash if a respected journalist was found to be fabricating stories for profit? Since Dimond has never been a real journalist, and has only provided cheap sensationalism (and money), networks are willing to overlook her very prominent lack of any integrity whatsoever, when reporting or otherwise (what kind of person can she be when she frequently lies and makes things up for profit?)
If HLN is willing to sell out even further for money instead of objective and fair coverage, then screw them straight to Hell. I certainly will not be among the audience when the trial airs--the last thing I need, as paramount insult added to already grievous injury, is to have this crackpot b--ch smearing Michael's memory with her lies (or with her repugnant presence). Enough is enough, and I will not stand by and let them do this to Michael again. Instead, I will be speaking out against them through whatever mediums I possibly can, and spreading awareness about the kind of people they're willing to hire, and the journalistic crimes they have committed and continue to commit, unrepentant.
