The thing is, guys like Sharpton and Jackson, they were just doing same-old same-old.
The one’s I’m really annoyed with is the National Association of Black Journalists. They were the first ones out of the gate to call for the firing of Don Imus, and that’s part of what gave the story legs.
Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.
The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat.
In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, “We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.”
But they didn’t. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down. Popeye-like, they decided that this was all they could stands cause they couldn’t stands no more. Their belief, apparently, was that they shouldn’t have to tolerate Imus’s racist opinions anymore.
Except they were wrong. Because that’s the price you pay for living in a free society. One’s business should always be with what your opponent says, not with your opponent himself, and people calling themselves journalists should have understood that.
The answer to free speech is always more free speech…not the shutting down of that speech.
PAD
• 
Bill; you are so right. That may be the absolute best post ever!
Bill; you are so right. That may be the absolute best post ever!
Bill; you are so right. That may be the absolute best post ever!
Why thank you. I am blushing.
Bill Myers is just the coolest person in the world. I wish I could be Bill Myers.
Loved seeing Werewolf by Night, Man-Thing, and the Frankenstein Monster again.) 🙂
Totally off-topic, but I never got the name “Werewolf by Night”, was there also a “Werewolf by Day”?
Why, thank you, Bill!
And no, that wasn’t me impersonating Bill. I mean, you don’t see a link to my Web site at the top of the post, do you?
You do????
Oh, God dámņ it…
“Also, we must be realistic and note that mainstream whites have never expressed a real need nor desire for white exclusive organizations. Those who do express the need for them are almost always radicals who do so spitefully. The ADL’s website quotes language from the NAAWP showing their anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-Jewish sentiments.”
Johnny, Reality called me. History was on the line with her. They would like to remind you of several facts: Several “white only” clubs that do not bear the initials KKK have, in fact, existed. Some still exist today, and some still exclude non-whites. I believe the Union Club of Chicago, as recent as 10 years ago, still denies membership to non-white males. I recall a story from the past 10 years of Michael Jordon being denied permission to golf at an exclusive, all-white club.
I don’t know if you’d call CEOs, legacy families, nouveau rich, etc., “mainstream,” but they certainly don’t seem like shadowy fringe crazies, either.
True, but that doesn’t make thier existance right either. Making an observation about a black organization does not necessarily mean you would feel differently about a woman’s organization, religious organizations or organizations like the gay alliance. The fact of the matter is the minute you discriminate in either direction you are no longer being equal or treating others as equals. If you have an issue with that inequality when it thrown in your direction but defend it when it goes the other way, you can expect that someone, somewhere, at sometime will point out that there’s a slight hyprocracy there.
Lets look a very hypothetical situation. Lets say that there is a serious social problem that plagues 50% of black Americans ONLY. Such a hypothetical problem would thus plague only 6% of the overall American population. 50% tends to be seen with much more urgency that 6%. If half of white Americans ONLY were plagued with this hypothetical social problem, that would equate to 35% of the U.S. population. 35% tends to be seen with much more urgency than 6%.
This is the reason that many feel it necessary to look at certain social problems from an ethnic perspective and to deal with them from such a perspective. People are never going stop pointing out the numerous negative statistics associated with black Americans such as crime, AIDS, poverty, unemployment, out of wedlock births, single parent households, school dropout rates, low academic scores, obesity, etc. What’s the point of repeatedly pointing these out, yet frowning upon attempts by black Americans to organize and deal with the reasons for being overrepresented in most negative statistics?
Johnny, Reality called me. History was on the line with her. They would like to remind you of several facts: Several “white only” clubs that do not bear the initials KKK have, in fact, existed. Some still exist today, and some still exclude non-whites.
I’m speaking of modern day mainstream whites. Maybe I should have been clearer. Within the last 30 years, there has been no significant expression by mainstream whites to have organizations based on the white race. Even the organization you listed above did not exist as a race based organization. It just excluded non-whites from participating in whatever purpose they had. Heck, this was the case with mainstream organizations throughout history in this country. The KKK was probably the first organization designed specifically to serve, protect, defend, etc. the whiter race. Other organizations were for other purposes and just excluded non-whites from participating.
“CEOs, legacy families, nouveau rich, etc.” are not race based organizations. They may utilize means to unofficially exclude non-whites or give advantage to whites, but serving the white race is not their official goal.
White organizations created to serve only whites overwhelmingly are fringe and express real disdain for non-whites and Jewish people. So that is what non-whites and Jewish people associate with organizations created specifically to serve whites. Maybe if there was a history of such organizations consistantly showing respect and good will toward non-whites and Jewish people, there would not be such a stigma.
“NBC News denied the drop in advertisers was the motive in dropping Imus, and didn’t deny they were protecting their credibility.”
Yeah, that’s called a “lie.”
PAD
“The NABJ, as people intimately familiar with the process and with the principles in question, has as much of a duty to themselves to prosecute abuses of freedom of speech as they do to defend the exercise of it. They can, and I’d argue should say, “Hey, we’re the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you’ll find, but this clearly crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior. We won’t defend it, because to defend it is to abrogate our common sense and reduce us to yes-men for racists.” Because if they _always_ defend someone’s speech, even when it’s indefensible, nobody will listen to them when they defend legitimate exercises of free speech.”
And that’s where their entire argument would fall apart. Basically you’ve just put forward one of the oldest saws: That certain types of speech don’t deserve protection. That’s the problem: Yes, they do. Popular speech doesn’t need protection by definition. It is protecting the right of Don Imus to say things that are insulting or unpopular that enables you and me and the NABJ to say things that other people might find objectionable. “Crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior?” No. Burning crosses on someone’s front lawn crosses that line. Going up to the girls, saying, “You’re looking too uppity for your own good” and spitting in their faces is crossing the boundary of civilized behavior. Making a bad joke involving a racial epithet that’s routinely already used by blacks and then apologizing for it is way, way, way within the boundaries. I would further say that the NABJ doesn’t get to decide what Don Imus can and cannot say any more than I get to decide what the NABJ can and cannot say.
“Now, you might say that this makes them “not the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you’ll find”, and you might argue that “The answer to freedom of speech is always more freedom of speech, not the shutting down of freedom of speech”…in fact, I believe that you actually did. 🙂 But, carefully and politely, I will point out that you yourself negotiate these same boundaries that the rest of us (including the NABJ) do.
Not too long ago, a poster made a comment in another thread about a member of your family. I don’t know what that comment was, because you deleted it and replaced it with a statement that comments about your family that you found inappropriate or insulting would be deleted, as they were beyond the boundaries of what you were willing to allow in your comments section. You did not respond to that poster’s speech with more speech–you deleted his comment, and set a boundary beyond which “free speech” would not be allowed.”
I was waiting for someone to bring that up.
Here’s the difference: This website is my personal property. Monitored by me, overseen by Glenn, read by my entire family. I decided to introduce exactly one limit: You can’t insult my family. Say what you want about me, but my wife, my kids, etc., are off limits.
What the NABJ did would be the equivalent of someone saying something nasty about my family on Newsarama and I actively lobbied Matt Brady to ban that poster. Which I would never do. In fact, there have been times when Matt banned someone on the basis of the fact that they were insulting me and I urged him not to do so because of my belief in free speech.
So to create a parallel situation: If the NABJ had invited Imus to give a speech at one of their meetings, and Imus had said in the course of his speech, “And hey, what about those Rutgers girls; what a bunch of nappy-headed hos, huh?” and the NABJ subsequently declared that Imus would never be asked to speak there again and was banned from all future meetings…I’ve got no problem with that.
But that’s not what they did.
So clearly the NABJ could SAY that they were the biggest defenders of free speech you’ll find, but judging by their actions, it seems obvious that there’s plenty bigger defenders of free speech right here.
PAD
I don’t think that Imus should have been fired. Neither do I think that Tim Hardaway should have been fired.
Well, there was a typo, and an ambiguous use of a pronoun that stands out.
So which notion is nonsensical:
If you aren’t determined to arbitrarily dismiss my point, let me know which aspect of it crosses into the the realm of nonsense. Start anywhere. We can get through this.
My take on the situation accepts everyones’ word as it has been given, and requires no one to lie to achieve the same results. Can you articulate the motive to lie? Why not cite the loss of advertisers as the reason for firing Imus?
Because from a political point of view and a CYA point of view it comes across much better for the execs to say, “We were shocked, SHOCKED that he said this and naturally on the basis of morality and our credibility yadda yadda we had to fire him” than for them to say, “Our advertisers were bailing so we had to fire him.” The latter implies that, if it weren’t for the advertisers pulling out, they would have been “okay” with Imus’s comments. You know…like they’ve been for the past several decades. For that matter, even recently, they didn’t immediately pull him from the air. A number of days passed before they did so, which implies that they bowed to outside pressure rather than acting from internal indignation.
That’s why.
PAD
“You’re welcome to live any life you want… up until the moment you threaten someone else’s.”
I love that line–twenty imaginary bucks to anyone who can guess which X-Men issue that came from.
That’s how I feel about freedom of speech. Imus had every right to say what he wanted, when he wanted. The NABJ should have been screaming at the top of their lungs defending the man’s right to speak out. His words weren’t hurting anything except black people’s pride. I know I felt wounded when I read about what he said. That’s the whole issue, I think, our pride.
Here’s my theory: Imus’s remark was a slap in the face to many blacks. Here are these smart, talented young women who are not just role models to young black women but all young women; all likely go on to be successful, useful members of society, if they’re not already. Yet to this ancient old white man their accomplishments meant nothing; it was nothing to him to denigrate them.
That’s difficult to accept. It reminds us that no matter how hard we try to get along in America we’re always targets to be disrespected and dismissed regardless of how well we live our lives. I’m sure a lot of PoC feel the same way when they see or hear their race being mean-spiritedly mocked and insulted.
In the end, though, I think the NABJ’s response was a major league çøçk-up. Yes, many of his listeners got off on his remarks. They’re racists… at best they’re thoughtless, immature bášŧárdš, but they are not going to magically disappear now that Imus is off the air. All NABJ has done is made the asshat a martyr—one I have to support because he *is* a martyr. Nothing’s been solved by their actions, only made worse, if death threats are flying around.
P.S. I’ve been watching The Daily Show too much. I cannot tell you how many times I almost typed NAMBLA while writing this post.
No one disgrees Imus made a pantsload of advertising dollars for NBC News or that they had every right under free speech to take that money. No one disagrees that Imus’s audience will find a way to access him again and that advertisers will sponsor him when they do.
What result of admitting they were ok with the last 10 years of Imus did NBC News avoid by lying?
“As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, [the NABJ was] right to challenge them for passing ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism.”
Was that the reason the NABJ gave for calling Imus to be fired?
In other words, was it their leverage, or just your leverage in this discussion?
Imus wasn’t arrested. He wasn’t fired because of what he said…if that were true he would have been fired automatically and that would be censorship. This is not censorship though. He was fired by his bosses because he did something stupid that cost his company money. How many of you have immunity from being fired due to stupidity and loss of revenue? He can still host a radio show, and he still has the right to say whatever he wants. All this complaining about what happened to him is BS…but you have every right to voice your BS.
As for the “reverse racism” of organizations focussed on minority groups, they tend not to exclude anyone. Usually, people from other groups just don’t see any reason to join. Also, they give voice to a minority that (in a majority rules system) would never have the voice or votes to do what they want. I’m sure almost every member of NABJ is also a member of whatever the main journalism organization is, and they can voice their free speech concerns there along with the majority.
The only statements by the NABJ I saw cited Imus’s racism in calling for his firing. They seemed to leave the detailed specifics of their rational to the beholder.
Peter, if I’m interpreting him correctly, said the NABJ calling for the firing of Imus inherently worked against the free speech that shelters them, and benefits us all. In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus’s firing based on intolerance of his opinion.
As far as Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus, Imus’s ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes were passed as journalism. Therefore, calling for Imus’s firing doesn’t cross into the boundary of restricting free speech any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired — an intolerence considered acceptible because of the role credibility plays in legitimizing a news source.
Peter’s counter to this seems to be that credibility was not a deciding factor because without advertisers, there is no news division — that Steve Capus must have lied when he claimed advertiser-loss wasn’t an issue.
But advertising is no longer a factor when no one disagrees Imus will broadcast again, his ratings will return, and advertisers will sponsor him. As anyone has yet to mention any other feared result avoided by such a lie, the claim Steve Capus lied when he said advertising was not a deciding factor seems made only to substantiate an otherwise arbitrary claim the NABJ sacrificed free speech to indulge in intolerance.
Money follows ratings. The threat to the broadcasters seems to be based on having their credibility challenged, and the prospect of NBC and CBS being forced to rebrand to compete with Fox and conservative talk radio for their slices of the news and radio markets.
This requires rephrasing:
In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus’s firing not based on intolerance of his opinion.
“This requires rephrasing:
In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus’s firing not based on intolerance of his opinion.”
Oh yeah, THAT clarified it. Nothing clears things up like a double negative…
PAD
“In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus’s firing not based on intolerance of his opinion.”
Oh, I get it.
Since
a) It is impossible that PAD is right, and that the NABJ ‘failed in their public trust as journalists’.
and since
b) PAD is right that calling for the firing of Imus based on his opinions would be inappropriate for journalists committed to free speech.
The only option left for Mike is that they called for Imus’s firing for a different reason.
What is that reason? They do not say. But Mike has been able to figure it out: they called for Imus’s firing because for a shock jock who is employed by NBC news to make racist jokes is like a reporter fabricating a story.
I love it. This logical twist is like a sureal picture. It doesn’t make much sense but it’s a work of art nevertheless. and it’s completely self contained. Nothing you say can break it. It’s a little like one of those pictures where the waterfall falls into itself.
—————–
Is it me, or does Imus look a little like Sabertooth?
Let me see if I’ve got the 200 posts plus or so.
And for those math majors out there…
PAD believes J(journalist group) main goals is to say A(anyone) can say anything within the law – free speech (FS). So J=A+FS. Except when a specific someone – Imus(I) does this J calls for I to be Fired. So J=A+FS except when I+FS then I+FS=Fired. Except if if Imus is considered Anyone or I=A then J isn’t making any sense.
The other point is the contention of Imus’ firing.
Imus made wacky(racist, sexist, ridiculous) comments for years advertising was fine, no threat of public protests in front of corporate HQs – he had job. Imus makes wacky(racist) comment, advertisers pull out, threats of public protests in front of corportate HQs – he is fired.
MSNBC/CBS claims firing is because of wacky statements. Yep that makes total sense.
Until later
John
Peter portrayed the NABJ call to fire Imus as inherently working against the free speech that shelters journalism and that benefits us all.
In order for this to be true, there must be no justification for firing Imus based on something other than intolerance of his opinions. If such a motive exists, then free speech as we know it did not depend on journalists’ withholding calls for Imus’s cancellation. Please review the bolded text emphasizing that such a motive must be completely absent for Peter’s criticism to be true.
Just as calling for the firing of a journalist who fabricates a story is not an action to curb lying in general, calling for the firing of Imus for passing ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism is also not an action to curb dissemination of Imus’s opinions — both are justified as preserving the credibility of the journalism institutions in question. No one disagrees Imus will return to broadcasting, his ratings will return, and advertisers will sponsor him.
As I have provided a motive to fire Imus that does not depend on intolerance of his opinions, Peter’s criticism seems to be unambiguously wrong.
Mike, I am certain that all this makes perfect sense to you, and that nothing Icould say would convince you otherwise. So let’s agree to disagree.
You cite the parts of my last post that are nonsensical to you, and I will revise them to distill the clarity of my point.
Where you do not cite such a passage, your calling my point nonsensical — and thus your disagreement — is arbitrary.
Thanks, that’s not necessary. Your post is perfectly clear. I just don’t agree with it. You think it makes perfect sense, I don’t. It happens. Since we are unlikely to change each other’s views all we can do is move on.
I made no claim the sense of my posts was perfect — I’m not a platonist, remember? If I thought the sense of my posts was perfect, I wouldn’t offer to clarify what you find nonsensical.
No, it’s just that at first, second, and up to the fourteenth, understanding the FIRST explanation is like trying to ride a ten-speed up a hill through a blizzard while sitting backwards on the seat and looking over your shoulders through goggles that are covered in cookie dough.
Micha–Sabretooth? Really? I was thinking he looked like a classic Scooby-Doo bad guy.
It’s just a figure of speech. You can remove the word ‘perfect’ if it makes my post unclear to you. Aside from that there is no need for you to clarify your post for me, it is clear enough. Thanks anyway.
“Sabretooth? Really? I was thinking he looked like a classic Scooby-Doo bad guy.”
Yes. You’re right.
Do you think somebody is going to pull the mask off Al Sharpton’s face and it’s going to be Imus?
Determining that which is clear and that which is obscure is the province of our senses. To say my point is clear, then deny my point makes sense, is nonsensical.
Oh, God, have to lift the shroud, if only for a moment…
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Micha says he wants to agree to disagree… and Mike is parsing THAT and arguing about it!!!!!!!!
Oh, Mike, thank you. I needed a good laugh.
Bill, I’m happy you are taking this discussion with the appropriate attitude.
Mike, let’s also agree to disagree about your recent post too. Bye.
Micha, some day you may be generous to answer the following: if you were to discover you were wrong about something, but decided to simply retreat from your wrongness by accusing me of making no sense and offering to agree to disagree — how would that be different from your accusation what I say is nonsensical and offer to agree to disagree now?
Here’s what I’m getting from PAD’s point: He think all journalists, especially those of a minority group, should always defend the right to be heard. That’s fine, and it makes sense.
I just don’t see how this is a free speech issue. Imus wasn’t fired for what he said. He was fired because his work drew enough criticism for the company to lose a lot of revenue. That’s why most people get fired.
As for the black journalists, I don’t recall anyone saying what could or couldn’t be said on the radio. I think their point was that these corporations in particular shouldn’t sponsor that kind of behavior. What’s wrong with that?
PAD, what if they said this? “We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it. However, we will not work for the companies who employ him or support the companies who sponsor him.”
…generous enough…
As the histories of suspension and return to the air of other shock jocks demonstrate, Imus will recover listeners and sponsors. As NBC News President Steve Capus denied loss of advertisers was a motive in firing Imus, he probably knew this.
Is it me, or does Imus look a little like Sabertooth?
I always think of the cryptkeeper.
“I just don’t see how this is a free speech issue. Imus wasn’t fired for what he said. He was fired because his work drew enough criticism for the company to lose a lot of revenue. That’s why most people get fired.”
Except it was the reaction of the NABJ that initiated the firestorm of negative reaction. Nothing seizes the attention of journalists like the reaction of other journalists. When the NABJ started shouting for Imus’s head, that ensured the story would build and build and build.
“As for the black journalists, I don’t recall anyone saying what could or couldn’t be said on the radio. I think their point was that these corporations in particular shouldn’t sponsor that kind of behavior. What’s wrong with that?”
PAD, what if they said this? “We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it. However, we will not work for the companies who employ him or support the companies who sponsor him.””
And that’s defending his rights…how?
I mean, let’s set aside the BS, shall we? Everyone knows that advertisers are the weak link in the chain of support for free expression. Pressure groups that despise certain TV shows go after the sponsors to try and make the show unprofitable enough that the networks have to dump them. It’s completely ridiculous to assert that, on the one hand, a group is supporting free speech while on the other hand displaying pressure tactics to try and shut down the venue of that free speech. Basically the notion is that they’re supporting free speech, but only in the abstract. Taking steps specifically designed to impede a venue for free expression cannot, within any stretch of the imagination, be considered “defending to the death.” That’s not even defending to a coma.
PAD
mike, are you saying that blacks are not educated enough to speak what they mean? they clearly wished to see imus removed because of his remarks about the team. that was their only stated reason on many of their statement releases. for you to be making an arguement based on the idea that some other reason other then the one they themselves state is why they wanted imus gone is stupid or saying that you think that they are too stupid to say what they mean. no racism there buddy.
http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html
Imus apology too little too late; ‘It is time for him to go’
UPDATED4/12/07
NABJ erroneously reported several companies were sponsors of the Don Imus show, including the New York Stock Exchange and Newsday. While both companies had been sponsors in the past, neither were or are current sponsors. We regret the error.
(APRIL 6, 2007) WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Black Journalists remains outraged after the racially inflammatory insults made by radio personality Don Imus, even though the shock jock offered a two-line apology days after he called members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team ‘nappy-headed ho’s.’
NABJ is calling for the immediate removal of Imus and his WFAN producer, Bernard McGuirk — who referred to the players as “jigaboos and wannabees” — by Monday morning.
The association also questions if sponsors of his show — which include the Simon & Schuster and Random House — will want to continue to be associated with the program.
“What he said has deeply hurt too many people — black and white, male and female,” said Bryan Monroe, NABJ president. “His so-called apology comes two days after the fact, and it is too little, too late.”
Imus has had a history of racial insults on his program, having called award-winning journalist Gwen Ifill of PBS a “cleaning lady” and referring to columnist William Rhoden of the New York Times as “a quota hire.”
“As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech,” Monroe added. “But free speech comes with responsibility, and sometimes with consequences. His removal must be that consequence.”
“These were nothing but hard working student athletes — young women, just trying to do their best. After 40 years on the air, it is clear that he has lost touch with all that is decent and honorable in America,” said Monroe. “It is time for him to go.”
On his show at 6 a.m. Friday morning, Imus read the following prepared statement: “Want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry.”
MSNBC also issued the following statement: “While simulcast by MSNBC, ‘Imus in the Morning’ is not a production of the cable network and is produced by WFAN Radio. As Imus makes clear every day, his views are not those of MSNBC. We regret that his remarks were aired on MSNBC and apologize for these offensive comments.”
NABJ appreciates the swift action from NBC and its cable channel MSNBC in condemning his remarks, and now hopes the network will continue to do the right thing and separate itself permanently from the incendiary host.
——————————————————————————–
An advocacy group established in 1975 in Washington, D.C., NABJ is the largest organization of journalists of color in the nation, with nearly 4,000 members, and provides educational, career development and support to black journalists worldwide.
My point did not depend on deviating from anything I’ve heard the NABJ say. Your citation does not change this.
Did you need a Doctorate in Philosophy to ID yourself as “:(” or can anyone do that?
This needs a bit of PERSPECTIVE.
This coming Wednesday at 9pm, PBS will air the Bill Moyer special “Buying the War.” It reveals specific details about how prominent media personalities ‘sold’ the Iraq war to their viewers without any attempt to substantiate White House claims. In fact, the media went out of its way to SHUT DOWN any ‘counter-war’ discussions.
I just want to know…where were all these “with free speech comes RESPONSIBILITY” people back then???
“for you to be making an arguement based on the idea that some other reason other then the one they themselves state is why they wanted imus gone is stupid or saying that you think that they are too stupid to say what they mean.”
Actually, I think it’s just that he thinks some people here–other than his sock puppets–are stupid enough to believe it.
“”As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech,” Monroe added. “But”
And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn’t* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.
PAD
Mike: “Micha, some day you may be generous to answer the following: if you were to discover you were wrong about something, but decided to simply retreat from your wrongness by accusing me of making no sense and offering to agree to disagree — how would that be different from your accusation what I say is nonsensical and offer to agree to disagree now?”
I understand your confusion. I can only promise you that if I discovered I was wrong I would not hide it, and that my disagreement with you is sincere. I believe my record on this thread speaks for itself. However, you are free to disagree with me on that too. That’s the nature of agreeing to disagree.
PAD, I understand your point completely about the
NABJ. But what to you think people who work for media personality like Imus, or for a company employing such a media personality, should do if they feel that person is saying things they consider racist?
What would you do if a publisher you were working for was publishing racist material?
(I should make it clear that I’m asking this question sincerely, and not because I’m trying to trip you).
As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech:
Obviously, journalists do not benefit from the unqualified principle of “We disagree with everything [you say], but will defend to the death his right to say it.”
You once refused to relent from portraying compatible statements as mutually exclusive of each other:
This kind of nonsensical denial seems to epitomize every challenge to what I say you issue.
Mike, you’ll excuse me if I don’t consider you the best judge of the quality of my posts.
Naturaly, I also disagree with you on the last pist. You see, that’s the nature of agreeing to disagree, when two people realize that their disagreement cannot be solved by continuing the discussion.
But it is funny that you’re disagreeing about the agreeing to disagree. This could go on ad infinitum. But let’s end it before the fabric of time and space is shattered by the absurdity of this discussion. Bye.
PAD, here’s something I really hope everyone understands: Don Imus still has the right to broadcast and say whatever he wants. This right has not been taken away from him…not by the FCC, CBS, NBC, nor the NABJ. Freedom of speech is a legal issue so unless this qualifies, stop using this loaded term and call it something else.
Using racially-charged accusations, Imus has personally attacked at least two black journalists in the recent past so one would expect this to be strike 3 for them. Your point seems to be that it’s wrong for journalists to take this stance on this issue. You want them to be objective or supportive, but unbeknownst to you, they’ve been a part of the Imus story long before this incident.
What are you asking for exactly? Since you said that the answer is more free speech, what did the NABJ do besides speak freely? What exactly can or can’t the NABJ speak freely about? I understand you’re just annoyed, you don’t want to limit the speech of the NABJ, and you’re simply speaking freely yourself, but it all sounds like BS.
Also, realize that after the original 2-week vacation he was given, he’d be back to work on Monday. I’m looking forward to the answer to Micha’s question.
“As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech:
As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but a journalist who fabricates a story should be fired”
That’s just idiotic.
I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can’t distinguish between voicing opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories? Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument? If it’s the former, than you’re too stupid to talk to anymore, and if it’s the latter, then this is just a waste of time.
PAD