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
• 
“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?”
Depends on what that person’s job is. If the personality is, for instance, supposed to be giving inspirational speeches Sunday morning, and he said, “And to all my black brothers and sisters…sorry, but God hates people of color and you’re going to hëll,” it doesn’t seem unreasonable for the broadcaster to say, “Yeah, uh…time for you to go,” particularly if the listening audience starts dropping in response. But Imus has been doing the exact same thing for thirty years, and there was no evidence that the audience was dropping in response to Imus’s comments…plus he apologized up one side and down the other.
“What would you do if a publisher you were working for was publishing racist material?”
What if they were? They’ve a right to publish whatever they want to publish.
PAD
“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.”
Bûllšhìŧ. I’m sorry: Bûllšhìŧ. Imus is a radio personality. Assorted black pressure groups and individuals teamed up to remove him from the radio. Trying to say that that does not fly in the face of supporting free speech is like going up to a guy preaching on the street, ripping out his tongue, and then saying that his free expression hasn’t been taken away because he can always write. It goes back to what I said before: Supporting free speech in the abstract while attempting to eliminate the venue in reality is mealy mouthed.
“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.”
Oh my GOD! I wanted journalists to be OBJECTIVE! What the hëll was I thinking? I must have been out of my MIND! Because in journalism school they teach you that the absolute LAST thing a journalist should be is objective! So expecting objectivity from an entire organization of journalists…I see the error of my ways.
Sheesh.
“What are you asking for exactly? Since you said that the answer is more free speech, what did the NABJ do besides speak freely?”
Take away the forum of someone whose speech they didn’t like.
“What exactly can or can’t the NABJ speak freely about?”
They can speak freely about whatever they want. But since journalists depend upon free speech for their livelihood, when they go out of their way to stifle someone’s free speech, I call them on it and say they’re hypocrites.
“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.”
I’m not annoyed. I’m pìššëd øff. And you can say it sounds like bûllšhìŧ all you want, but you know what my stance is that the so-called journalists of the NABJ isn’t? It’s consistent. It holds to the ideal of free speech for all…not just for those who no one finds offensive.
PAD
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.
First of all, I don;t want any connections between my question and the questions of ME. I asked my question because all the other questions were already answered, and I wanted to examine anoher angle of the greater ssue of freedom of speech.
I was trying to put myself in the position of somebody working for Imus or his network, listening to his allegedly racist statements for a while. And I’m not talking here about an executive whó is worried about the effect on the bottom line. I’m talking about a gofer, a technician, a fellow broadcaster in the same network, who is sitting there asking himself: “this guy is saying things that not only don’t I agree with, but I find them morally reprehensible, and I’m associated with this person. What should I do? Do I stay and say nothing, for the sake of free speech? Do I leave quietly? Or do I go to the employer and demand that something changes or I leave? Maybe there’s another option? Some fellow broadcasters could have had the option to publically criticize Imus. Thus excercising free speech against him. But what about the others?”
I don’t know. It would seem that PAD believes, if I’m interpreting him correctly, that such employees should not feel that ther are associated with Imus’s words, and therefore shouldn’t care what he says, unless it is their job to care. If I’m misunderstanding then I’m sorry.
I’ve worked for advertisers who did work for political parties and groups I opposed, and did work for them myself. But nothing that caused me to feel I need to disassociate myself from this work.Yet, I can imagine a situation where it would be impossible for me to stay.
“But Imus has been doing the exact same thing for thirty years, and there was no evidence that the audience was dropping in response to Imus’s comments…plus he apologized up one side and down the other.”
This goes beyond the question of free speech to the question of Imus’s own specific conduct, which I’m not in a position to comment about. I don’t have enbough information. Was it a failed joke, or the last straw in a career of racist statements? Was his apology sincere, or fake. I don’t know, and it’s not relevant to the basic question of free speech, since he’d have the right to free speech regardless.
The fact that he’s made similar comments in the past is similarly not relevant, since the willingness of people to accept or not accept things like racism, racist jokes, sexist jokes etc. changes over time. That’s why Southpark could never have been made in the 50’s. But had it been made, it would deserve the same freedom of speech then as it does now.
PAD: “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?”
Yes.
PAD: “Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument?”
Likely that too.
PAD: “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.”
Pretty much.
We have a shroud for sale that specializes in Mikeness. It’s pretty used, but it’s cheap as hëll and all proceeds go to charity. My child’s college fund will appreciate the $1.35.
I followed that NABJ link from above, and now I’m really disliking NABJ. They had a statement from a couple of days prior to that one demanding that Imus apologize. Imus apologized. Hëll, he did an apology tour that ended with the team themselves and them accepting his apology.
What’s their response to that? Too little too late?!? Screw them.
There’s only one group of people that really had the right to demand an apology from Imus and that’s the girls themselves. Once they accepted the apology, that should have been the end of it.
I’m not an Imus fan, but, by the end of it all, this whole thing got blown way too out of proportion and Imus was penalized way too heavily.
I have to say that I think someone can be a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment without believing that those principles extend to giving someone a paid platform for their speech.
I never said the 2 actions were interchangeable, and my point doesn’t depend on them being interchangeable offenses.
Peter, you made “As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but…” the dámņìņg qualifier. Not me. You. As far as you dismissed any exception to free speech as a journalistic principle — whatever stupidity you are referrring to is yours.
Funny thing about this thread. It proves one of the problems with freedom of speech. That being, people are free to say whatever they want however they want without understanding A)they only think they know what’s being discussed without understanding anything more than their own personal bullet points and B)some people are so enamored of either their own personal freedom of speech (or the sight of their own typed words) that they don’t realize that by continuing to argue a point, they’re demonstrating that they don’t understand that freedom of speech doesn’t equal necessity of speech. Especially when the person hasn’t the barest comprehension of the nature of the discussion.
One more thing before I shut up. (Hey, I KNOW I talk too much.) Jerry, I’ll take ya up on that offer if you autograph it. Might be a valuable collector’s item someday. Wonder what I could get for it on eBay?
Your facts are wrong. The NABJ called for Imus’s cancellation, then Imus lost his show, then he apologized to the Rutgers players personally.
My posts are relevant to the comments they are responding to, so I’m glad you aren’t referring to me.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but it sounds like the vulnerability you refer to is so devastating, it makes me wonder what the virtue is in you not saying what it is, and dismissing the wrongness in question.
“I have to say that I think someone can be a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment without believing that those principles extend to giving someone a paid platform for their speech.”
No one said that was the case; otherwise everyone would be entitled to having a paid platform for their speech, which is obviously ridiculous.
Look, it’s really simple: If someone says, “I do not believe in freedom of speech, and will do everything that I can to shut down someone who says things I don’t like,” then I can respect that.
If someone says, “I believe in freedom of speech and will do nothing to shut down someone who says things I don’t like,” then I can respect that.
When someones says, “I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don’t like,” then I say that’s rubbish.
PAD
“Everything I can?” Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don’t like?
But I think it’s more the platform they have an issue rather than the speech itself; after all, we hear people say ignorant things every day and nobody tries to shut them down. I think the protests came about because Imus had a nationally syndicated radio and TV show, and people did not think he deserved that platform.
And the NABJ has called for only Imus’s cancellation. Taking your strawman literally, that would mean Imus is the only person saying things they don’t like. That means the NABJ likes everything George Bush says, they like every movie they see — and they don’t have arguments with their family.
I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure you’ve just disqualified yourself from calling anyone stupid ever again.
“When someones says, “I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don’t like,” then I say that’s rubbish.
“Everything I can?” Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don’t like?”
Yeah, okay, it’s official, you’re an idiot. Done with you now.
PAD
“But I think it’s more the platform they have an issue rather than the speech itself; after all, we hear people say ignorant things every day and nobody tries to shut them down. I think the protests came about because Imus had a nationally syndicated radio and TV show, and people did not think he deserved that platform.”
Yeah, here’s the thing: The NABJ shouldn’t get that determination. In a free society, if an individual or group doesn’t like what someone on the radio has to say, their response should be as follows: (a) turn the radio dial to something they like better, and/or (b) say specifically in whatever forum they can WHY they don’t like what the individual on the radio had to say.
The problem is that the counterargument is, “But since this IS a free society, then I’m free to try and shut someone down permanently.” And that’s true. Unfortunately that goes back to a very simple concept: Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do something. As journalists whose stock in trade is entrenched in free expression, the NABJ should have known this, acknowledged this, and fought for this. The fact that they didn’t is unfortunate and displays a limitation on its thinking.
PAD
I wonder what Turin did on the blogosphere in order to be shrouded with the Shroud of Turin.
Now we have a Shroud of Mike, and an official confirmation as an idiot. I feel there should be a ceremony. Something involving the Pope, the Queen of England, or the Academy of Motion Pictures. Hopefully I weon’t win best supporting….
Your strawman (speaking of sock puppets) characterized the NABJ as tolerating absolutely no dissent.
Your inability to associate the totalitarian behavior completely and obviously compatible with an absolute intolerance of dissent demonstrates that whatever stupidity you are referring to is yours.
That’s, like, 2 lifetimes you’ve disqualified yourself from calling anyone stupid ever again. You should stop before you make it 3.
“I wonder what Turin did on the blogosphere in order to be shrouded with the Shroud of Turin.”
Turin got tired of people wondering where the soup was and got bìŧçhÿ.
Oh, wait, is that for the Shroud of Tureen? Oh, okay. Then it forgot to pack up some cables and amps after the last show.
Oh, right, that’s for the Shroud of TOURIN’.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.”
I just think it’s ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they’re somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can’t have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren’t actually on the job. Oh, well…I can agree to disagree.
I was actually using your words from the original article (2nd paragraph, 5th word) when I said you were annoyed. Maybe, I should have used quotation marks. Since you were just annoyed when you posted the article, it seems this discussion is what pìššëd you off. I’m just going to forget all of this, and only think of you as the guy making “X-Factor” such a great read.
“I just think it’s ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they’re somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can’t have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren’t actually on the job. Oh, well…I can agree to disagree.”
Agree or disagree, but this is an incorrect representation of PAD’s opinion. If you’ll think about it a moment you’ll realize that too.
a) He did not say they should say nothing if they found Imus offensive, only not call for him to be fired.
b) He did not say they should have no opinions, only that they should not call for Imus to be removed from the medium from which he convays his opinions even if they dislike them.
c) He does believe that journalists should hold to “pre-determined journalism opinions” about freedom of speech.
d) Since the NABJ is an organization of journalistsm and it made its statement as such, the journalists who made these statements were “actually on the job” when they made it. They spoke as journalists, or else what’s the point of these statements.
Now, you can agree or disagree with these ideas. I personaly was not sure about a variation of that idea, so I asked a question. But please at least understand and represent the opinion correctly.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”
Huh. So, if I were to suggest that atheism is inconsistent with being a Christian, would I too be guilty of having a small mind?
A journalist’s job sometimes requires him or her to report that which is inconvenient to the Powers that Be. That’s why free speech is vital to journalists, and why it’s something they should defend tooth and nail. That’s not a “foolish consistency,” but instead a recongition of the logical implications of the job, just as a belief in God is one of the logical implications of being a Christian.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”
That’s one of those clichés that people trot out whenever they’ve been caught in a colossal contradiction. I’ve used it myself.
It’s right up there with another favorite–when a columnist or editor proudly claims that they get nasty letters from the left and the right and that “if we are getting criticized by both sides we must be doing something right!”. Alternate explanation–you suck so badly that people of all persuasions think you suck.
Me: I just think it’s ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they’re somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can’t have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren’t actually on the job..
Luigi Novi: No, he doesn’t seem to fee that. He already made his feelings explicitly clear, and that wasn’t it. Try scrolling up and reading it.
That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn’t have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe. If all you want to do is say that you disagree with their opinion or their statement, that’s fine. Just realize that there’s a difference.
As for the quote, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between “a foolish consinstency” and consistency itself. For good or bad, consistency makes thinking unnecessary, and right or wrong, I think these people should be allowed to go against journalism’s default stance. That’s freedom too. I’m not caught in any contradiction. I actually believe what the quote says, and therefore, I have no fear of contradictions. That’s a different kind of freedom. I was actually offering an out for those I feel aren’t being consistent. I happen to value honesty over consistency.
Me:That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn’t have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s false. Peter didn’t say anything about limiting what they say or believe. If you read what he actually said, you’d know that.
Me: I think these people should be allowed to go against journalism’s default stance.
Luigi Novi: Peter didn’t say otherwise.
Me: I happen to value honesty over consistency.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you resort to Straw Man arguments.
“Me:That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn’t have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s false. Peter didn’t say anything about limiting what they say or believe. If you read what he actually said, you’d know that.”
What I said is actually true, but this statement itself accuses no one of doing this. I kind of hit reset on my way out of this thread, and you missed it. This statement simply states fact and says if it doesn’t apply to you don’t worry about it. I don’t recall referring to PAD in that statement. Only PAD can determine if what I said here applies to him. If you read what I said, you’d know that.
“I just think it’s ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they’re somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can’t have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren’t actually on the job. Oh, well…I can agree to disagree.”
I have an even better thought: How about if we agree to discuss what I said rather than what you claim I said, since there’s a gulf the width of the mighty Mississippi between the two.
If you can find ANYwhere that I said ANYthing remotely close to your characterization, then fine. But you won’t. What I SAID was that their business should have been with what Imus SAID rather than trying to shut Imus down. I have said that repeatedly and consistently since the beginning of this thread, and frankly, I find it dismaying that otherwise intelligent people seem woefully unable to hold such a simple concept in their brains. Do you see the gargantuan separation between “they should have supported Imus’s right to free expression” and “they should have said nothing?” Because the two sentiments are NOTHING alike, and I don’t know whether to feel offended that you would ascribe that belief to me or just sorry for you that you can’t distinguish.
PAD
“That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn’t have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe.”
I’m sorry: That’s just idiotic. Mind-bendingly idiotic. What you’re effectively saying is that to disagree with ANYone–to assert that someone said something that was wrongheaded or hypocritical or damaging to the commonweal–is tantatmount to imposing restrictive thoughts or censorship. So basically you’ve just tried to dispesnse with the very concept of criticism by claiming to do so is to advocate censorship. To say nothing of the blistering double-standard you’re supporting. On the one hand you decry my saying that the NABJ was out of line in their stance; on the other hand you seem to have no problem with the NABJ attempting to say that Imus “should not have thought or said” the things he did.
Your position is bizarrely restrictive and makes no sense, agreeing to disagree or not.
PAD
Your hosting account should be logging your posters’ IP addresses (which can be traced to their geographical locations), and some of their configuration info like their browser, their platform, and type of connection. You should be able to match the posts to this page, for example, to the page visitation in your logs.
Hosting companies tend to automatically delete logs after a certain time, like a week. If you suspect someone of posting under more than one identity, it might be a good idea to back-up the logs for periods of time where such actions seem to be taking place — in case you need to hand them over the police.
Of course, as there seems to be universal agreement to the non-relevence of the anonymous “Me”‘s posts, I would be curious to see if his connection info matches that of any other poster’s, since their only purpose seems to be in opening criticism of your (very vulnerable) point to discredit.
“Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2007 08:06 AM
Actually, I think it’s just that he thinks some people here–other than his sock puppets–are stupid enough to believe it.
Your hosting account should be logging your posters’ IP addresses (which can be traced to their geographical locations), and some of their configuration info like their browser, their platform, and type of connection. You should be able to match the posts to this page, for example, to the page visitation in your logs.”
I don’t know why PAD thought you had sock puppets, since I haven’t seen anyone, from both sides of the discussion, who agreed with your ideas on this thread.
Also, my posts are complete in challenging Peter’s post. The invasion from Dimension Me, and everyone’s rebuttles of his nonsense, only seems to serve the purpose of covering Peter’s retreat from my challenge.
Sorry Mike,
PAD already answered your challenge, and he’s moved from you to more logical people, like Bizarro.
Retreat from his challenge! So, so needy.
“Retreat from his challenge! So, so needy.”
That’s the all-purpose internet lose/lose scenario, don’t’cha know. Stake out a position and argue it for an extended period of time, and you’re characterized as stubborn and intransigent. Realize that the person you’re speaking to is not worth wasting time on anymore, and you’re running away.
What’s the old line about the pointlessness of wrestling with pigs? The pig enjoys it and you just wind up smelling like pig.
PAD
Yeah, but if you pin the pig and get the three count, you win!
Or Bacon!!!
Mmmm….. bacon…
PAD, you’ve just mischaracterized my position. I guess you’re just getting back at me, huh? To paraphrase the part of my statement you purposely omitted, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they shouldn’t have even made the statement you disagree with. Do you at least understand this? It’s like the difference between saying one disagrees with Imus and saying Imus shouldn’t even say whatever it is he wants to say.
Me,
You seem to be missing a couple of points here.
To paraphrase the part of my statement you purposely omitted, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they shouldn’t have even made the statement you disagree with.
The NABJ didn’t just say that they disagreed with Imus, they did say that he shouldn’t have said what he said. They didn’t just disagree with him and state their reasons for disagreement, they declared that nothing short of removing a man from his positions of employment and ending his career in radio was acceptable for the statements that they felt that he should not have said.
Moreover, the people making these statements were journalists speaking as journalists. You’re taking the tact that a journalist can speak his or her mind on personal opinions about matters without being limited in that by their profession. You’re right. However, these guys are putting forth this opinion as professional journalists representing other journalists. They’re saying what they’re saying not as private citizens, but as professional journalists. Is this too difficult to get?
You or I could say that Imus should be fired and PAD will disagree with us. What he won’t do is find some aspect of hypocrisy in our statements or say that we are somehow failing to uphold the standards that we should be defending. Hëll, if one of these guys had said that his personal opinion was that Imus should be canned but his professional view was to just let the market decide and offer alternatives to Imus’s ideas it might get the same reaction. But this was a group of journalists using their status as journalists to get someone fired because they feel that what he said should not be said.
I don’t agree with with everything PAD has had to say on the Imus thing, but I’ll give him that point. Journalists should not be the people leading the charge to curtail another’s freedom of speech. They certainly shouldn’t be doing it as journalists. I don’t support it when Fox News jahadist extraordinaire Bill O’Reilly does it against someone I agree with and I shouldn’t let my personal views on what Imus said allow me to accept it here. Then I would be just as hypocritical as them.
No, not really:
As far as he is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn’t the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle, or is unable to address how the absence of militant, totalitarian enforcement isn’t the least bit an exception to the relentless and absolute intolerance he characterized the NABJ of sheltering, he is experiencing a deficit of introspection.
This isn’t necessarily bad. We aren’t machines who form every judgment in the sequence we approve them, or experience every sensation in the sequence we observe them. This seems no less true for Peter professionally, where, say, an editor may find something Peter included in a manuscript the editor thinks people will find arbitrary, he can tell Peter he needs to dumb it for the stupid people, or maybe Peter will minimize the dependence of plot or character on understanding the otherwise arbitrary reference.
However, review the offense Peter has taken when asked to reconcile the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories, or when asked to reconcile his citing the NABJ of tolerating absolutely no dissent and the absence of totalitarian enforcement. The degree to which Peter has taken offense seems to be the degree to which his deficit of introspection is severe.
Plus you have to deal with all those pesky restraining orders when the pig calls Kim Basinger “Mom.”
“As far as he is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn’t the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle.”
I believe PAD answered that point quite clearly when he said:
“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?”
You’ve failed to explain why you can’t make the obvious distinction between “voicing opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories?”, nor to take that obvious distinction into consideration in any of your later posts. PAD answered your challenge quite clearly, and you have failed to answer his. In none of your later posts did you provide a clear explanation why you can’t make this obvious distinction which is essential to this discussion.
Since the reason you fail to understand PAD’s very clear answer to your challenge, is that you are incapable of making the necessary distinction which is the linchpin of PAD’s simple answer, you are unable to continue the discussion until you’ve figured how to understand the distinction between voicing opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories.
This is primarily directed toward Micha, but applies to others as well:
I find it odd that you keep trying to set Mike straight. It can’t be done. It just can’t.
Micha, you’ve said you continue to engage Mike from time to time because you like to explore how other people think. That has me kind of flummoxed, because Mike is pretty one-dimensional and easy to figure out: he sees all discourse in terms of wins and losses, and he wants to win so bad it makes his teeth ache.
To Mike, arguments are like professional sports: you either win, or you lose. There are no moral victories, and there are no points given for lessons learned. Winning is good, losing is not. Period.
That’s why during the course of a thread Mike’s posts devolve into sheer lunacy. Once he’s staked out any rhetorical ground, he has to defend it to the death. He can’t acknowledge that someone else may have a point, because that would be like an athlete letting an opponent score. Were he to allow himself to understand that even people with whom he disagrees may have a decent point here or there, he might not WIN.
Hëll, recently he scoured my blog for something he could use against Jerry Chandler. Of course, he took it out of context and robbed it of its unambiguously intended meaning, but that’s Mike. He actually spends time looking for “ammo” to use against his online “opponents,” because, again, to him this about WINNING.
He gets angry, of course, because none of us will play right. We don’t acknowledge his bogus “victories.” We don’t play by his arbitrary, autism-like rules.
It doesn’t matter what you say to Mike, because he doesn’t communicate or even apprehend the world the way a rational person does, Micha. You may as well try to explain calculus to a newborn baby. Seriously.
Don’t get me wrong, Micha. You’re not upsetting me by conversing with Mike. It’s your time to spend as you choose. But I like you and it seems like there are better ways to fritter away your time if fritter you must. So I thought I’d share my two cents.
I’m not missing anything. I completely understand your POV. I disagree with it. I still see a difference between accusing the NABJ of being hypocritical on this issue and telling them what they should say and believe. Since consistency is so important to some of you, here’s what I feel is consistent: Imus, the NABJ, and PAD have said things I disagree with. Imus, the NABJ, and PAD should say whatever they want because it’s what they want to say. If saying what they want to say makes them hypocrites, I think it’s better for everyone to know they are hypocrites and to know how they truly feel about the issue (which is the more important thing to know). Some of you think it’s more consistent for someone to say or believe one thing as an individual and say or believe the opposite as a part of a group, but by definition, that’s just as hypocritical. If hypocrisy is unavoidable, why not be honest? If they felt Imus should be fired, saying anything else would have been a lie.
By the way, organizations that publicly call for someone to lose their job when they have no authority to take that person’s job are doing nothing but hoping and wishing even if the desired result takes place. Even if you take the call as a threat, it doesn’t mean anyone has to respect it. None of you would have, right? And why are people saying they ended his career in radio? Give me proof he’s been banned from radio. If he wasn’t so old, I’d bet money he’d be back on the air somewhere by next year saying he apologized and deserves another chance.
Me–and I think you are an actual real person and not, as Mike seems to believe, someone deliberately acting stupid to make him (Mike) look bad–can I ask a question? Do you think there was anything particularly wrong with the Hollywood Blacklist?
Keep in mind that, like Imus, a lot of those who were blacklisted managed to get work in movies and TV again. Eventually. The ones who didn’t kill themselves anyway.
Me: “I still see a difference between accusing the NABJ of being hypocritical on this issue and telling them what they should say and believe.”
See, this is where you enter into either strawman territory or just plain don’t get it territory. Go back and read PAD’s original bit at the top of the thread. He expresses disappointment at the NABJ for what he sees as their failing to defend the spirit of the First Amendment. In no part of what he wrote does he say that the NABJ cannot say or believe certain things. He merely states that he finds it disappointing that they chose to fight, basically, against the spirit of the First Amendment. Unless I’ve missed it, he has also not made the statement that they cannot say or believe certain things in any of his posts in this thread. That being the case, you’re arguing against a point that was never made.
Me: “… I think it’s better for everyone to know they are hypocrites and to know how they truly feel about the issue (which is the more important thing to know). Some of you think it’s more consistent for someone to say or believe one thing as an individual and say or believe the opposite as a part of a group, but by definition, that’s just as hypocritical.”
I agree that it’s a good thing to know when you’re dealing with a hypocrite. That’s not really an issue here. If you present yourself as an organization that represents journalists and journalistic standards (and talk up freedom of speech in several areas of your website) in this country, then you do have a duty to uphold and defend certain things like the First Amendment. If you fail to do so, then you open yourself up to criticism.
It’s also not hypocritical to not express some personal beliefs on behalf of a group. The department I work for has very strict guidelines for what we are allowed to say and to whom we can say certain things when in uniform and on the job. At those times, we represent the department whether we want to or not. I can’t make public statements about politics, departmental procedures, whether or not a law is good or bad, etc. without permission, if I could even get it, from our press coordinator. I can’t use department stationary to write letters to my representative or to the local newspaper.
Now, there’s nothing that says I can’t speak my mind here, in a local bar or even to the press when I’m not in uniform, on the job or in some way saying that I’m representing my department’s views while expressing my own. There are some laws that I disagree with in some way or another that I still enforce everyday. I’ll exorcise my voice on them anytime except when I’m being paid by the department. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s acknowledging the limitations of my allowable speech when I’m representing the organization of which I am a member.
Same here. They are presenting themselves as an organization that represents journalism. As such, it is hypocritical of them as an organization to assault another’s freedom of speech. And it’s especially hypocritical when they claim to promote or defend that right in their own literature.
Me: “And why are people saying they ended his career in radio? Give me proof he’s been banned from radio. If he wasn’t so old, I’d bet money he’d be back on the air somewhere by next year saying he apologized and deserves another chance.”
Gee, I don’t know… Maybe it has something to do with his former employers dropping him like a hot rock and the people who tried so hard to get him canned have also made it clear when interviewed and the question comes up that they’ll go to war against anyone else who picks him up. Right now, the threat of financial damage and the massive headaches and hassles to prospective employers is too great to want to deal with employing Imus. If I get you fired from your job and then make it impossible for you to find work by threatening your prospective employers, then I’m trying to destroy your career. Right now, they’re partly responsible for destroying his career (with, I will readily admit, huge amounts of help from Imus himself.)
You’ve even admitted that his being fired under this controversy may have nailed his career’s coffin shut with one statement. “If he wasn’t so old, I’d bet money he’d be back…” His age does come in to play here. He has been removed early, rightly or wrongly, from his career in radio. You sometimes deal with a limited shelf life in careers like that. You yourself have said that his has just possibly become even more limited due to his age at the time of his removal now. He may well find an outlet to express himself again, but it likely won’t be what it was. His career as he knew it is over.
Bill Mulligan: “and I think you are an actual real person and not, as Mike seems to believe, someone deliberately acting stupid to make him (Mike) look bad…”
What, like anyone would believe that he needs help to do that? He’s become the Arnold Rimmer of the blogosphere minus the wit, personality and charm. Who could possibly believe that he needs any help with looking stupid?
Yes, I do think it was wrong, but let me know when Imus and other suspected racists in the media get called before Congress and threatened with imprisonment. Also, explain what anybody on the Hollywood blacklist did in their work that they needed to so much as apologize for. It’s completely different. Give me a better comparison too. That was weak.
PAD has stated that as journalists they should not take a stance against Imus’ “freedom of speech”/employment with NBC and CBS. He didn’t just say he was disappointed though. He said the statement shouldn’t have been made. He even tells us what they should have said. Now if you want to say he’s not really saying what they should and shouldn’t have said, that’s fine. I’ll let it go…again. Please, let me. I just disagree with you. As for me, I actually believe in freedom of speech so I think they all should have said whatever they wanted to say and deal with the consequences.
As for other statements, what happens when you go against any of your department’s rules? You’ll get fired or at the very least disciplined, right? Well, those who employ members of the NABJ have the right to fire them for losing credibility as journalists and endangering the sales of their publications if anyone internally or externally saw fit to make an issue of it. Fair is fair, right? What’s the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer’s blog? Shake those fists.
Also, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and the definition doesn’t change depending on the public view you falsely hold even if it’s the right thing to do. Considering my belief that we’re all hypocritical in some fashion, the word doesn’t have the stigma for me that it has for others hung up on the negative connotation. Truth is truth. They had 3 options: be honest (and be hypocrites), lie (and be hypocrites), or be quiet (and be punks). Which would you want them to do?
I’m open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.
You, as I understand it, all PAD has stated is that they shouldn’t have used their POSITIONS as jounalists to say that Imus should’ve gotten the boot. They may not have written in their papers about it, but saying that “We’re the NABJ, fire Imus,” is as much using their positions as if they did. As members of the NABJ, their statements carry much more weight than if they got together and said, “Hey, we’re a bunch of guys, fire Imus.”
Yes, I do think it was wrong, but let me know when Imus and other suspected racists in the media get called before Congress and threatened with imprisonment. Also, explain what anybody on the Hollywood blacklist did in their work that they needed to so much as apologize for. It’s completely different. Give me a better comparison too. That was weak.
Obviously they are two very different cases. The point was, you were minimizing the fact that Imus lost his job. Big deal, if he weren’t so old he’d be back. Well, Dalton Trumbo came back and wrote Spartacus so, big deal, a few studios didn’t want to work with him for a time. All’s well that ends well, right?
I’m open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.
I’m personally not aware of any such threat but I don’t see why they would not try to pressure any future employers of Imus. the website of the organization has several articles detailing why they thought he should be fired adn all of them would be just as applicable to any future emplyment. basically they say he is a repeat offender and his apologies mean little and it’s time for him to go. Why would a change of radio stations alter that opinion?
PAD’s initial point – which I assume is that it is counterproductive and perhaps self-damaging for black journalists to call for the silencing of Don Imus – is quite good. I would also agree that any attempt by government to act to silence him, or any call by others for the government to do so, would involve serious First Amendment concerns. What did happen in this case, however, seems almost entirely a matter of Imus’s bosses exercising their right to look after their own wallets. If they thought keeping him on would have increased or maintained their profits, I’m sure they would have done so. To bring the situation much closer to PAD’s (but not, really, to attack him), suppose that he took some position with which his readers took serious issue. If DC, Marvel or some other entity decided to remove him from a project, in fear that they would lose readers, good will and dollars, that would be their call, except as regards any contractual obligations they had to PAD. If they came to his house and prevented him from speaking or writing for some other publisher that would be a violation of his human or civil rights, or perhaps of his much-expanded view of ur-First Amendment freedom. Making a determination that they like money more than they do PAD would just be capitalism in action. With as much real world experience as he has, while he would be upset, he couldn’t be surprised. Backing away from this a little, I also suspect he would be very unlikely to act as stupidly as did Don Imus.
Peter dismissed as a journalistic principle any exception to free speech. Period.
Not me. Peter.
As such, the burden of reconciling the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories is his. Not mine.
This isn’t brain surgery.