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
• 
“PAD, you’ve just mischaracterized my position.”
Perhaps you just presented it poorly.
“I guess you’re just getting back at me, huh?”
Uh…no. But between your anonymity (unless you’re Mark Evanier, hence “ME”) and your persecution complex, you’re not making much of a positive impression.
“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.”
Sure, there’s a difference. Point is: The NABJ didn’t distinguish. They not only disagreed with what Imus said, they then subscribed to the notion that “Imus shouldn’t even say whatever it is he wants to say” by taking away his venue. I have no problem with the first one; major problem with the second. Clear?
PAD
“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.”
Are you under some sort of impression that nothing like that has ever happened?
At least two or three times a year, someone somewhere contacts Marvel (or DC, when I worked for them) and announces that they themselves are going to boycott my work/get their friends to boycott my work/organize a boycott of the entire company unless I’m removed from all future assignments, all because they don’t like my politics. I’m not even talking about stuff that goes into my books; I mean here. You following that? People come here, read my opinions, then go to my employers and try to get me fired.
None of which has the slightest relevance to what I said in the first place: The NABJ is an organization of journalists. They are NOT the same as the I-Hate-Liberal-Peter-David contingent. They practice a profession beholden to freedom of expression. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, I believe they should be held to a higher standard than a bunch of schmucks who believe that freedom of speech means the freedom to shut down whomever they want to when they don’t like what they have to say.
PAD
“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.”
Not true. The distinction between “opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories,” is imlicit in his words. It is so obvious nobody but you though to question it. But when someone came around who was not aware of this obvious inplicit distinction, PAD made it explicit by saying: “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?” From this point even you can assume that whenever PAD talks about free speech he’s including this very explcitly stated exception. If you choose to ignore that exception, as provided by him, it is probably because you do not understand it.
Bll Myers, I often beat myself up for wasting my time in many ways. I have made it into an art. And it is something I’m extremely not proud of. However, I’d appreciate if you do not add your voice to my ongoing self criticism.
Whenever I come to this board, I do so for the sake of entertainent, instead of doing the things that I probably should be doing. Sometimes the entertainment I find on this thread is more high brow, like a discussuion in free speech, or the imminent threat of zombies. At other tmes it is enjoyable to second guess movie makers like George Lucas or Brian Singer, ot just be silly. but whatever it is, it is usually a form of entertainment and relaxation. And sometimes dealing with Mike is its own form of entertainment for me, especially because I know exactly what to expect. It might not be the most high brow of entertainment. Certainly reading a good book, or getting on with my life, would be better. But since I’m already in entertainment mode, this is good enough, and I’d rather not combine it with another one of my favorite passtimes, self-criticism. (oh, and I’d rather not open this post for discussion either please).
Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 09:14 AM
However, I’d appreciate if you do not add your voice to my ongoing self criticism.
It wasn’t actually intended as criticism, but I will respect your request that I back off. And I apologize if I upset you.
For what it’s worth, I admire many of your qualities and aspire to develop such qualities in myself. In fact, if it came down to a question of who brings more value to these conversations, you or I, I would say the answer is you, hands down.
And that too is not open for discussion. 😉
Thanks 🙂
We’ll agree to disagree.
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.
To make this analogy complete, we should then imagine that the CBLDF comes out and supports PAD’s firing. Someone points out that this is a terrible position for them to take, Me argues that a little hypocrisy is ok as long as it’s honest, others decry supposed attempts to deny the CBLDF the freedom of speech to deny freedom of speech, Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker and we are pretty much right at where we are now.
You know, this amazes me. Peter’s point is so very simple: the NABJ, in their capacity as journalists, should not be advocating that anyone be fired, suspended, or otherwise punished because of what they say. Furthermore, Peter believes that a desire to see anyone silenced is incompatible with a belief in the value of free speech.
I happen to agree with the above, but I believe there is a counter-argument to be made, albeit one with which I would likely not agree. Why the hëll are some people still spinning their wheels arguing with phantoms of their own making?
“Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker…”
The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude.
And are those little people in any way related to the denizens of the Bottled City of Kandor?
Don’t know about any relation, but I hear in that city at any co-ed party, it’s a federal offense to suggest playing Spin the Bottle, and people that collect bottle caps are looked on with great suspicion. I hear people get fired from radio jobs for talking about it.
Even when I was a kid the Bottled City of Kandor bugged me because it was one more piece of evidence in the theory that absolutely nobody died when Krypton blew up!
You had a whole chunk of the planet floating around with Supergirl’s clan. You had the Phantom Zone criminals. You had the assortment of animals that Jor-el sent up to test the rocket, You had Kandor. “Last Son of Keypton” my ášš.
It got to the point where it was beginning to look lkie the only people who DID die on Krypton were Superman’s parents…and then he found them, floating around in a space-coffin!
Me: “I’m open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.”
http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53027p-81729c.html
NABJ appalled by Imus’ racist comments, Calls for boycott of show
http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html
Imus apology too little too late; ‘It is time for him to go’
“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. “
“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.”
They called for a boycott of guests and they gave out sponsor information on their own website. Further, their own president called for boycotts in several TV interviews given around the time he was meeting with CBS. If you threaten to damage sponsorship, then you threaten the financial bottom line of anyone who would employ Imus. With that threat hanging in the air, no one else would pick him up anytime soon, if at all, either.
Me: “What’s the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer’s blog? Shake those fists.”
First, PAD complained on his own blog, not me. Second, my first post on this thread was actually in disagreement with some of what PAD said. I just understand where PAD is coming from and what he’s actually saying VS what you’re arguing that he’s saying.
You want to know something? The thing I find funny about this is that I’m not in complete agreement with PAD on this, but I can at least understand what he is saying and leave it at that without creating odd tangents that he didn’t actually say to further disagree with.
Me: “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.”
No, you don’t hold a false public view. That would be hypocritical. You simply don’t express certain of your own personal opinions when representing an organization that holds standards that are different or better then your own. I don’t speak about how great something is when on the job and then change that opinion when off duty. I simply don’t divulge certain personal positions and beliefs that I hold when on the job and around anyone other then my fellow officers or people who know me outside of work. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.
I’m not a fan of laws that make seatbelts a mandatory thing with penalties for not wearing them. I’ll still write you a ticket for failing to wear one because that’s what my job says I’m required to do. I don’t complain about the stupidity of seatbelt laws when on the job, in uniform or in some way representing my department. I don’t give my opinion of them at all. Again, that’s not hypocrisy, that’s being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.
People in America have every right to speak their minds on whatever they want to as a private or public citizen, but they do have a personal obligation to be mindful to the obligations of their profession when making a point to speak as a representative of that profession. It’s actually very simple.
***********************************************************
“… Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker…”
“The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude.”
The salt shaker? No, no, no, no. He Who Must Not Be Mentioned would never speak to the little people in his salt shaker. Why would he want to talk to those evil, white oppressive salt shaker people when there are so many cinnamon, pepper, cumin, paprika and basil shaker people for him to wile away the hours with in long discussions of oppression and the crimes of those spices and herbs that shelter race privilege.
Me: “I’m open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.”
http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53027p-81729c.html
NABJ appalled by Imus’ racist comments, Calls for boycott of show
http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html
Imus apology too little too late; ‘It is time for him to go’
“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. “
“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.”
They called for a boycott of guests and they gave out sponsor information on their own website. Further, their own president called for boycotts in several TV interviews given around the time he was meeting with CBS. If you threaten to damage sponsorship, then you threaten the financial bottom line of anyone who would employ Imus. With that threat hanging in the air, no one else would pick him up anytime soon, if at all, either.
Me: “What’s the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer’s blog? Shake those fists.”
First, PAD complained on his own blog, not me. Second, my first post on this thread was actually in disagreement with some of what PAD said. I just understand where PAD is coming from and what he’s actually saying VS what you’re arguing that he’s saying.
You want to know something? The thing I find funny about this is that I’m not in complete agreement with PAD on this, but I can at least understand what he is saying and leave it at that without creating odd tangents that he didn’t actually say to further disagree with.
Me: “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.”
No, you don’t hold a false public view. That would be hypocritical. You simply don’t express certain of your own personal opinions when representing an organization that holds standards that are different or better then your own. I don’t speak about how great something is when on the job and then change that opinion when off duty. I simply don’t divulge certain personal positions and beliefs that I hold when on the job and around anyone other then my fellow officers or people who know me outside of work. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.
I’m not a fan of laws that make seatbelts a mandatory thing with penalties for not wearing them. I’ll still write you a ticket for failing to wear one because that’s what my job says I’m required to do. I don’t complain about the stupidity of seatbelt laws when on the job, in uniform or in some way representing my department. I don’t give my opinion of them at all. Again, that’s not hypocrisy, that’s being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.
People in America have every right to speak their minds on whatever they want to as a private or public citizen, but they do have a personal obligation to be mindful to the obligations of their profession when making a point to speak as a representative of that profession. It’s actually very simple.
************************************************************
“… Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker…”
“The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude.”
The salt shaker? No, no, no, no. He Who Must Not Be Mentioned would never speak to the little people in his salt shaker. Why would he want to talk to those evil, white oppressive salt shaker people when there are so many cinnamon, pepper, cumin, paprika and basil shaker people for him to wile away the hours with in long discussions of oppression and the crimes of those spices and herbs that shelter race privilege.
Sean,
I heard the phrase “did the bottle spin for you” in Kandor is the equivalent “did the earth move for you” in our world. Hence the request to play spin the bottle has whole conotations there that it dosen’t here. As does drinking straight from the bottle …
And hence a discussion about Imus, racism, and the concept of free speech ends with an impassioned discussion about the Bottled City of Kandor.
That is just so us.
“And hence a discussion about Imus, racism, and the concept of free speech ends with an impassioned discussion about the Bottled City of Kandor.”
The connection is obvious. Where do you think Imus is going to work now?
…
I haven’t challenged the distinction between opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories, because my point doesn’t depend on them being interchangeable to be true.
You have not reconciled the unconditional free speech Peter cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories. Anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.
Uhm, exCUSE me, but we are NOW talking about the Bottled City of Kandor. Imus is yesterday’s news.
Geez, some people…
“As does drinking straight from the bottle …”
Eesh, what do they do for babies?
That’s one of the reasons I keep coming back here. The conversations that are just so full of candor.
[
My dear Mike, the answer is quite simple. Since Peter’s ‘journalistic principle’ (as in the way he expect an organization of journalists to behave) is one of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories and tolerance of opinions that others don’t like, there is nothing that needs to be reconciled and no challenge.
I’m telling you all–IT’S A COMIC BOOK WORLD!!!
#1- KRYPTON DISCOVERED– http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268166,00.html
Astronomers Believe They May Have Found Earth-Like Planet
Scientists say the planet has a radius only 50 percent larger than Earth, and is very likely to contain liquid water on its surface.
The research team used the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO’s) 3.6-m telescope to discover the planet, which orbits a red dwarf
#2– KRYPTONITE RECOVERED–
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6584229.stm
‘Kryptonite’ discovered in mine
Kryptonite is no longer just the stuff of fiction feared by caped superheroes.
A new mineral matching its unique chemistry – as described in the film Superman Returns – has been identified in a mine in Serbia.
#3–CAPTAIN AMERICA UNCOVERED
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0424071capt1.html
Meet Dr. Raymond Adamcik. The Florida man, dressed as Captain America and with a burrito stuffed in his tights, was arrested Saturday night for allegedly groping women at a Melbourne bar.
Bring on the exo-suits!
I’m telling you all–IT’S A COMIC BOOK WORLD!!!
#1- KRYPTON DISCOVERED– foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268166,00.html
Astronomers Believe They May Have Found Earth-Like Planet
Scientists say the planet has a radius only 50 percent larger than Earth, and is very likely to contain liquid water on its surface.
The research team used the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO’s) 3.6-m telescope to discover the planet, which orbits a red dwarf
#2– KRYPTONITE RECOVERED–
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6584229.stm
‘Kryptonite’ discovered in mine
Kryptonite is no longer just the stuff of fiction feared by caped superheroes.
A new mineral matching its unique chemistry – as described in the film Superman Returns – has been identified in a mine in Serbia.
#3–CAPTAIN AMERICA UNCOVERED
thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0424071capt1.html
Meet Dr. Raymond Adamcik. The Florida man, dressed as Captain America and with a burrito stuffed in his tights, was arrested Saturday night for allegedly groping women at a Melbourne bar.
Bring on the exo-suits!
What sense does it make to admit that the Hollywood blacklist is completely different and still try to make an effective comparison with it?
I have to address something else though. When members of the NABJ meet strictly as journalists, they are members of the many journalism organizations. As the NABJ, they are basically black people dealing with racial BS in the media (whether they go about it the right way or just use more BS). Their actions were to combat the idea that Imus just made a bad joke, just needed to make an insincere apology followed by another one that may have been real, had to suffer through Al and Jesse, and can finally get back to work until the whole cycle started over again in a year or two. I write all that to say that’s what they do, and that’s what they did. Their opposition is basically whining…here.
The members of NABJ aren’t obliged to do anything for anyone except their employers (just like the officer said), and if their employers don’t care, those restrictions don’t apply. If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don’t people seem to care?
This isn’t damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It’s the only reason I posted. At least, the people I’m complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you’re complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don’t have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets.
PAD, the NABJ said someone shouldn’t say something and said this in a way that got results. You tell me if he’ll say it on the radio again. You simply said the NABJ shouldn’t say something and said it in a way that made me think it wasn’t worth saying…unless of course it made you feel better.
As for my apparent inability to clearly present my POV, I’m certainly no writer, but it’s not something that has hindered my success. As for the impressions we’ve made on each other, the amateur shrink in you read too much into a poorly written joke, and I’m going to just think of you as the guy who makes X-Factor such a great read.
Regarding my anonymity, what difference would it have made if I’d used the name Greg Hamilton the entire time? I’m not scrolling all the way up, but to my knowledge, Bill Myers is the only person besides you who has volunteered any information that would make him any less anonymous than me. What would you really like to know about me?
Thanks for the links, officer.
What sense does it make to admit that the Hollywood blacklist is completely different and still try to make an effective comparison with it?
The fact that people lost their jobs and the seriousness of that aspect seems applicable. If you want to ignore that point and simply say there are no comparisons to be made and that’s all there is to it, so be it.
Their opposition is basically whining…here.
I don’t think this blog is the nexis of of all opposition to the NABJ. As for “whining”—I thought most of the people here gave a good account of themselves, the usual exceptions excepted.
If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don’t people seem to care?
Well, when they do some folks call it whining. And I wonder how you can be so sure that nobody cares?
This isn’t damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It’s the only reason I posted. At least, the people I’m complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you’re complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don’t have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets.
kind of rambling here, don’t you think?
I’m not scrolling all the way up, but to my knowledge, Bill Myers is the only person besides you who has volunteered any information that would make him any less anonymous than me.
More than a few of us use our real names. I have no real problem with people who don’t but when I made the decision to participate here at a level that would entail making opinions and often disagreeing with people–including the host–it seemed as though using my actual name was the only ethical choice. But that’s just how I feel for myself, there are some great posters here who use pseudonyms.
I also think putting one’s actual name for all to see tends to make one a bit more careful about saying things one might regret. From our experience here, the most obnoxious, pathetic, nutty posters have usually been people who don’t put their full names down. As a result, I think new posters who actually use their names are probably given greater respect (and, as happened to you, they are less likely to be accused of being fakes trying to make Mike look bad).
Just my 2 cents.
No, that’s not Krypton – Krypton had, apparently, a day/night cycle, while this planet is probably tidally locked to its primary.
No, any Larry Niven fan worth his chocolate-covered manhole cover knows that a watery world that’s presenting one face to a red dwarf star is obviously a chirpsithra colony world!
Yeah, I kind of had a double take with the Kryptonite thing. How do you actually work out that a real sustance found now is just the same as a fictional substance from back when? I don’t remember lots of in depth study in what K was made of and in what amounts.
That comparison is insulting to the Hollywood 10. As for the true nexus of the anti-NABJ opposition, I did ask if I’m missing some underground movement to spread the word about the lack of credibility of NABJ members.
And can I go back and enter the name Greg Hamilton instead of Me? Would you have respected me more even if I’d used a fake first and last name the whole time? Why? Because instead of thinking I’m hiding something you would have fell for a lie? That’s kind of silly isn’t it? Why is Greg Hamilton is a more respectable fake name than Me? At least, I am Me. I’ve been Me longer than I’ve had my real name. The truth loses again to the well-told lie.
That comparison is insulting to the Hollywood 10.
Why?
What PAD has been saying is that, if you want to defend the principle of free speech, all speech must be protected, with no exceptions. That you and me agree that the Hollywood Ten were far more admirable human beings than a racist like Imus shouldn’t enter into the equation at all.
Who gets to decide which causes and persons are “worthy” of having their speech protected and which are not worthy of said protection? You? Me? If some ultra-conservative religious group were putting pressure to get a liberal media personality fired from his job for saying something they deem offensive, would your reaction be the same?
Strangely, the best shows that I can think of do involve characters that express a faith (real or fictional) or at least discuss them. TV has a long history of hit shows that have regular characters who have their religion displayed in. Maybe it’s just the ones I like.
Ðámņ.
Wrong thread. That’s what I get for having several windows open at once.
My reaction has been the same when this has happened to both liberals and conservatives (I am both and neither) in the past and present. People have the right to say whatever they want. People have the right to lobby for whatever they want. Employers have the right to fire their employees. Employees have the right to what they’re owed. Sponsors have the right to withdraw sponsorship. Those losing sponsorship have the right to what they’re owed. People have the right to criticize or lobby against anyone mentioned above, and people have the right to criticize and lobby against those making criticisms. Everyone just has to face the scrutiny of others. That’s freedom of speech. By the way, some speech is illegal and should be, but that’s where the scrutiny comes in.
My reaction has been the same when this has happened to both liberals and conservatives (I am both and neither) in the past and present. People have the right to say whatever they want. People have the right to lobby for whatever they want.
They do have the right, it isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal for people to lobby for a media personality to lose his job because of an expressed oppinion that said people disagree with.
I don’t think anyone here has challenged the right. It’s more that some of us think it’s a morally despicable and cowardly thing to do, particularly by journalists. And that it violates the spirit of freedom of speech, even though it doesn’t violate any laws.
It disgust me. But I don’t think the people shouldn’t have the legal right to do it. (And yes, Imus’s joke also disgusts me, so we have a case of something despicable being fought with despicable methods, IMO).
“The members of NABJ aren’t obliged to do anything for anyone except their employers (just like the officer said), and if their employers don’t care, those restrictions don’t apply. If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don’t people seem to care?”
I’m not a person. I see.
See, I happen to think that holding an opinion that isn’t held by the majority is not worthless. I happen to think that voicing notions that may not have occurred to others is not worthless. I’m a person. I care. The people who had agreed with me care. The newspaper that recently contacted me and wants to use my posting as an op ed piece seems to care. Or are they not “people?” For that matter, even the people in opposition here care enough to present counterarguments.
What kind of view point is it to hold that if the majority of people aren’t raising a ruckus, then it’s wrongheaded to do so? That’s the exact sort of sheepish compliance that has allowed the current administration to run roughshod over civil rights.
“This isn’t damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It’s the only reason I posted. At least, the people I’m complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you’re complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don’t have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets.”
Yeah, here’s the thing: I don’t play the NABJ’s game. I don’t traffic in punishment, retaliation, and pressure. I express ideas, thoughts. I ask people to come to their own conclusions rather than try and use economic pressure to punish them for not coming to mine. I hold to the standard of free expression in reality that they only give lipservice to.
It takes a certain kind of mindset to dismiss actions as “whining” simply because it displays a belief in free expression. Sure, I could go along with the sort of sheep mentality that doesn’t question the actions of others, particularly for such ephemeral notions as speaking contrary to popularly held beliefs. I choose not to…whether you think that’s worthless or not.
PAD
“What kind of view point is it to hold that if the majority of people aren’t raising a ruckus, then it’s wrongheaded to do so? That’s the exact sort of sheepish compliance that has allowed the current administration to run roughshod over civil rights.”
Hëll, if we only paid attention to “the majority” opinion, I think Rosa Parks would’ve still been riding the back of the bus and we’d still have separate water fountains for blacks and whites, the whole civil rights movement would’ve been crushed…
I’ve been Me longer than I’ve had my real name. The truth loses again to the well-told lie.
I know that must have sounded good when you thought it but…
Seriously, if you want to call yourself ME or Princess Banana Hammock or whatever, fine by me. Personally–and this is strictly my own opinion–it’s a lot easier to think of people as “real” when they have a real name. Yes, they could well be using completely fake names. For all I know, Bill Myers is actually Belvedier C Hornswaggle and he has gone to the incredible trouble of constructing a fake persona, complete with house and girlfriend. Why he would pick “Bill Myers” as a fake name is beyond me; I’d do for something a bit more tough and manly, like Dirk McChin or Lance “Race” Hardrod, or, well, Princess Banana Hammock.
But you can certainly use whatever name you want. The part about the truth and the well-told lie sounds, frankly, nutty. It’s not THAT big a deal.
Similarly, if you don’t see the parallels between people losing their careers during the McCarthy era–and it was far far more than the Hollywood 10–and what happened to Imus, well, I guess there’s no point in belaboring the point.
The way Peter expects journalists to behave is to dismissed any exception to free speech. And he reinforced this expectation repeatedly, even when the issue of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories had been brought to his attention.
Again, anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.
Mike, I really don’t know who you’re talking to at this point, or where anyone…PAD or otherwise…made the claim that you’re currently putting forth. Frankly, I don’t care, and I hope you take that to heart, because otherwise I know you’ll post something that supposedly supports your finding, and I’ll read it and think “huh? Wha?” Again.
So, anyway, as to your actual point…which I find somewhat funny, because it seems you’re arguing against yourself these days, as it was you that made that whole “branding, fear of re-branding” argument. Anyway, how can you reconcile unconditional free speech (which, so far as I can recall, PAD has never advocated, nor has he suggested that’s what we haveor should have, although it’s certainly an ideal we should aspire to, where wird or thought alone are seen as harmless) with an intolerance for journalistic lies? Simple. Journalists are paid to present facts. To ask questions, and present the facts they uncover. When a journalist just makes stuff up, but presents it as news, they aren’t doing what they are paid to do. When people do things they aren’t supposed to, when they’re being paid to do something else, they usually get fired. For not doing their job.
See, Mike, a journalist isn’t presenting his opinion, or excercising his free speech rights. He’s being paid by some agency to collect facts and report them…hopefully without embellishment, and mostly accurately. When the journalist lies, he hurts his employers credibility…the news brand…and possible hurts sales.
That’s the long, explanatory answer. The simple answer is that one…unconditional free speech…has nothing to do with the other…what I’ll call journalistic integrity.
And FYI, I don’t consider Imus to be a journalist. He’s an entertainer that says outrageous, inflamatory things. He occasionaly crosses over and has newsworthy guests, and might even have broken a story in his time. But he’s hardly Bob Woodward.
Bobb Alfred: “The simple answer is that one…unconditional free speech…has nothing to do with the other…what I’ll call journalistic integrity.”
Actually, Bobb, I have to disagree with you. I believe the concepts of “journalistic integrity” and “free speech are intertwined.”
When most people use the term “free speech,” it is implicitly understood that the concept needn’t be extended to things like libel, slander, or journalists fabricating stories. “Free speech” is about protecting the flow of ideas and thoughts, and I don’t think anyone would argue that the public dialogue is unfairly restricted when we punish people who knowingly spread lies that damage another’s reputation.
I think the only reason to assume that such reasonable limits aren’t implicit in the term is if you’re playing a game of “gotcha” in the name of winning an argument at all costs. And Bobb, you know I ain’t talking about you. 😉
Not this time, Bill. I don’t think I’d play that game with Mike.
And I agree with you, in a broad, general context, free speech and journalistic integrity are intrinsically intertwined. I think that concept is the basis for PAD’s initial reaction to all this, because as a journalistic entity, the NABJ, of all entities, should embrace the concept of free speech.
It’s only in the narrow context of Mike’s psosition…that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable…that the distinction needs to be made.
Something of a sidebar: Rosie O’Donnell will be leaving “The View” after her contract ends in June.
But this Yahoo! article comments on the “Imus Effect”:
“Statements by public figures are being watched more closely in the post-Don Imus era. The lobbying group Focus on the Family said it was preparing to contact advertisers on “The View” as part of a campaign against O’Donnell. The group is angry at O’Donnell for comments they feel were insulting to Catholics.”
Let the games begin.
“Let the games begin.”
You mean continue, correct? This isn’t anything new…groups have been lobbying for years to get people to say only non-inflamatory things. The only problem is, now they’ve got some idea that they can actually succeed.
This is where MSNBC and CBS screwed up. They canned him before there was a clear indication that he was a detriment to the broadcast. And they canned him in a way that strongly suggests it was to cater to the voice of the current vocal minority. Never a good way to make a decision, because you never know when it’s just the idiots speaking up.
Here’s a thought. If freedom of speech involves the flow of ideas, thoughts, and the like, and journalism is the expression of facts, are they actually as related as all that? Could some reporter get in trouble for printing facts about someone that the someone didn’t want out? If some reporter were to print in a paper that I’m a tall video geek with a root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, I can’t say I’d be happy about it, but it’s all true. Would I have any recourse against this guy? Now, if the reporter said all that, and my videos were simply mahvelous and my writing is worthy of the highest praise, (no, I won’t call those facts) I’d call THAT free speech, since it’s more opinion than fact. But if the reporter was using whatever media to which he had access to as a reporter to get my stuff produced, wouldn’t that be going beyond his role as a journalist? Or does it only apply when a journalist says something bad about somebody?
Posted by: Bill Myers at April 25, 2007 09:56 AM
“When most people use the term “free speech,” it is implicitly understood that the concept needn’t be extended to things like libel, slander, or journalists fabricating stories. “Free speech” is about protecting the flow of ideas and thoughts, and I don’t think anyone would argue that the public dialogue is unfairly restricted when we punish people who knowingly spread lies that damage another’s reputation.
I think the only reason to assume that such reasonable limits aren’t implicit in the term is if you’re playing a game of “gotcha” in the name of winning an argument at all costs.”
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 25, 2007 10:10 AM
“And I agree with you, in a broad, general context, free speech and journalistic integrity are intrinsically intertwined. I think that concept is the basis for PAD’s initial reaction to all this, because as a journalistic entity, the NABJ, of all entities, should embrace the concept of free speech.
It’s only in the narrow context of Mike’s psosition…that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable…that the distinction needs to be made.”
Well, of course.
It’s obvious to people like you of the ‘not crzy’ persuation.
But now you’ve ruined my fun. I was enjoying playing Mike’s game by his own rules, responding to his words instead of to the point, playing around rather than having a serious discussion. It was certainly much easier than offering actual thoughtful posts like you did. And it is the only effective way to deal with someone like Mike, not to take what he says seriously. But now the jig is up. Nevermind, I was ready to move on.
GEEZ, MICHA! I can’t do ANYTHING right by you this week, can I? 😉
Sean, you make a good point. I guess I’d say in response that “free speech” also encompasses the free flow of information.
“Here’s a thought. If freedom of speech involves the flow of ideas, thoughts, and the like, and journalism is the expression of facts, are they actually as related as all that? Could some reporter get in trouble for printing facts about someone that the someone didn’t want out? If some reporter were to print in a paper that I’m a tall video geek with a root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, I can’t say I’d be happy about it, but it’s all true. Would I have any recourse against this guy?”
Depends what you mean by “recourse.”
Legally? No. The only step you could take would be to sue him for libel, and truth is an absolute defense in libel. So if you showed up in court with your root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, and looked up long enough from your video player to complain you’d been libeled, the judge would take one look at you, look at the article about you, and toss the case.
BUT…let’s say that in addition to the above, you’re black. And you try to present a case that the reporter described you as such because he’s a racist, and should be fired. And you say it loud enough and long enough and to the “right” people that your complaint, however fabricated, supercedes reality. And advertisers start bailing, and no one will talk to the reporter because they don’t want to be associated with a “known racist.” And six months later he’s let go.
PAD
It will be interesting to see what the truth behind Rosie leaving The View is. According to O’Donnel and ABC it was nothing to do with any boycotts–in fact, ABC wanted her to sign a 3 year contract! She only would committ for 1 year and wanted $10 million to boot. They just couldn’t make the deal.
I doubt we’ll ever find out what the “truth” is. Neither O’Donnel nor ABC would want to admit that they parted ways because of O’Reilly’s crusade against her even if it were true.
My only thought about it is that I’d pay to see both O’Donnel and O’Reilly fight it out in the Thunderdome. No matter which one left, I’d still win.
Here’s an interesting bit of what might be fallout:
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070425/ap/d8onpv0g3.html
Dean: Bar Media and Candidates Will Talk
The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.
…Dean said politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.
“Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody’s true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press,” Dean said. “If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press.”
I don’t know if it’s the Imus situation he’s worried about or a certain well publicized scream, but this seems a bit…worrisome.
PAD, you’re mischaracherizing my position again. You seem to be suggesting that I wanted you to play the NABJ’s game when I specifically pointed out that using their methods was unnecessary. Plus, I never stated that your opinion was worthless because it’s the minority opinion. On the contrary, it doesn’t make sense for someone like me doing what I’m doing here to believe that or for anyone to come to that conclusion. I usually don’t speak up unless I disagree with the majority. I didn’t call what you were doing whining because it displayed freedom of expression. Again, neither having that opinion nor drawing the conclusion you did makes sense. I called it whining because it’s a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue. It’s like complaining about your job to your friends when they come to your house instead of doing something at work or in your industry to improve your situation. That’s what I consider worthless unless it makes you feel better. Words don’t always count as action. You know better than me how many come here to read what you have to say so considering the results, I admit that your article here actually has some merit beyond just venting. You are a writer afterall. I’m even willing to count you as “people” instead of one person. I never claimed you weren’t a person, but I admit that I didn’t count those on your website saying they agree. My bad.
As for the NABJ, you have to understand that what they feel on the issue is not a decision they made. They just feel a certain way about this. Some of these people lived in an era where Imus’ comments were common, and there was nothing they could do about it. They’re a bit antsy. Now, how they act is another thing, but considering how they felt, they had 3 actions: lie, be quiet, or be honest. Considering how they feel, I think they made the right choice to be honest despite the consequences. If PAD’s article reaches enough people, they may have made the choice to end their own careers as well, but they just have to live with that.
Lastly, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 because they actually served time in prison, and someone is trying to compare them to Don Imus who’s probably complaining about having to spend more time in his luxury suite. Now, I have to go sue someone’s freedoms away for giving an accurate description of me that was in no way insulting but can still somehow be racist libel since I happen to know the “right” people. It sounds so easy I have to try it.
I called it whining because it’s a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue. It’s like complaining about your job to your friends when they come to your house instead of doing something at work or in your industry to improve your situation.
It’s Peter’s blog and he posts on various topics, including his opinions on current events. It’s always been like that. I would guess that the vast majority of hits this site gets are from people expecting that.
I’ll gop further–given what Peter has posted in the past I think there would have been more than a few regulars who would have wondered why PAD hadn’t posted on the Imus situation, had he ignored it.
To turn your analogy around, calling his posting “whining” is like going to someone’s house uninvited and complaining about the conversations among the household. PAd has welcomed anyone who wants to participate here. You are also welcome to avoid any posts that don’t interest you. Anything else seems rather presumptuous.
Lastly, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 because they actually served time in prison, and someone is trying to compare them to Don Imus who’s probably complaining about having to spend more time in his luxury suite.
Actually, the first person to mention the Hollywood 10 was yourself. I mentioned the the Hollywood Blacklist. I would assume you are aware that the blacklist was waaaaaaay more than just the Hollywood 10. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Blacklist and you’ll find a list of literally hundreds of blacklisted artists. Only a tiny percentage went to jail. Most “just” lost their jobs.