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
• 
Thank you for agreeing journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech — the point Peter has characterized me as an idiot for making.
Well, FYI, Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus — Imus passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand.
As far as the rational for firing reporters who fabricate story is the role credibility plays in legitimizing a news source, calling for Imus’s firing is no more a restrictoin of free speech. As far as FAN didn’t want to rebrand to compete for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage’s slice of the talk radio market, they followed suit with NBC News.
As far as he has characterized me as an idiot for making the observation in the first place, it isn’t obvious to Peter.
And it wasn’t obvious to you:
How do you reconcile your claimed Peter explained how the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories fits within the domain of unconditional free speech he says journalism depends on — with your claim to have understood the obvious incompatibility of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories with unconditional free speech?
Everybody here remember the old commercials for Tootsie Roll Pops that had the cartoon owl in them? He used to ask how many licks it would take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Rool Pop.
Well…
How many cans of Guinness Stout do you need to drink before Mike’s last three posts start making any sense? I’m thinking it’s wayyyyyy more then three.
“It’s only in the narrow context of Mike’s [position]…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 [crazy]’ [persuasion].
As far as he has characterized me as an idiot for making the observation in the first place, it isn’t obvious to Peter.”
No. Peter characterized you as an idiot for not being able to make the distinction between voicing opinions that others don’t like and fabricating stories?
With some cough syrup it’s only 2.
“Well, FYI, Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus — Imus passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand.”
But that didn’t, in fact, make him a journalist. That’d be like saying since I get my pay for working in the TV department at a racetrack I’m either a TV or a horse.
Den–about whether or not we ever find out the truth about why Rosie O’ Donnell’s leaving the View–O’ Reilly’s gonna take credit, Trump’s gonna take credit, everyone and their midget brother with a lisp is gonna take credit. But, really, as to whether or not we’re ever going to hear The Real and True Story–
I don’t care.
I think the place where he did his show can somewhat cloud or confuse the issue for some. I said as much before. But, yeah, that line of logic would also mean that Dennis Miller, Ollie North, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are all real journalists because they are or were at one time being paid by a news channel to host a show on its line up.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way anyone would be stupid enough or crazy enough to argue that those guys are real journalists just to argue that Imus could in some way be said to have been a real…
Oh, wait… We are talking about Him, aren’t we.
Never mind.
Hey, as long as Miller doesn’t put “sportscaster” on his resume, I don’t care WHAT he calls himself.
And yeah, we were, but peeking behind the shroud is kinda like looking at a car accident. Sometimes you just can’t NOT look.
Actually, it’s like I was offered my run of the place as well as the opportunity to listen to him complain, but I responded by questioning what good it was to tell people like me when I didn’t realize there were others here who might actually do more than just agree with him. I’m not a regular poster, but I come here a decent amount and expected comments as well. If this didn’t interest me, what sense would it make for me to be here? Also, no one is coming here just to read about Imus. This isn’t the go-to place for that. They came here to read what PAD has to say about things like this Imus situation because they know who PAD is and that he has a blog.
Also, I don’t need Wikipedia, and I’ve known about the Hollywood Blacklist since childhood. Again, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 specifically to emphasize all the differences that makes this such a bad comparison. Take the entire blacklist if you like, and Imus actually did something wrong, wasn’t investigated by the government, and didn’t go to prison like 10 on the blacklist. It’s just a dumb comparison, but you can keep comparing Imus to people who did nothing wrong, some of whom went to jail for it.
Actually, some of those DID do something wrong, if you think that supporting murderous dictators is wrong. I don’t think the balcklist was wrong because the victims were all espousing good politics and were hounded for it. I oppose it because they had the right to believe even the stupidest communist propaganda and even try to convince others if they so wished. Keeping them from being able to work is fundamentally incompatable with what should be basic American ideals of freedom.
So if we have a person who was pro-soviet union at a time when that regime was murdering thousands and he or she doesn’t go to jail but is fired and prevented from working in their profession because people don’t like their politics…would you have a problem with that?
No matter what some of them did, you’re still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it. Bringing up the other extreme makes the issue even more complex and even worse of a comparison for that reason. It’s just a bad comparison. Try Jimmy Snyder for a better comparison…one media personality, one racially controversial comment, one questionable firing.
I noticed a while back that some assumed to know the answer to a question I now refuse to answer if asked, but what good would it do to have my answer to your last question if you don’t understand whether I “have a problem” with the current situation you’re trying to comparing it to? Again, I tend to comment on specific things I disagree with, and all you can assume is that I disagree with those things.
Posted by: Me at April 25, 2007 08:20 PM
I called it whining because it’s a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue…
Peter’s writings about free speech have inspired me to join the CBLDF. Moreover, I was conflicted about what happened to Imus until I read and thought about what Peter had to say on the issue. I was persuaded by his cogent arguments not because I like his comic-books and novels (although I do like them very much) but instead because his arguments were powerful and made sense.
Posted by: Me at April 25, 2007 08:20 PM
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.
Peter is on the Board of Directors of the CBLDF, and donates significant amounts of time and money to organizations that support free speech. He does plenty to help improve things.
No matter what some of them did, you’re still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it.
No matter what they did they did nothing wrong? And I specifically asked about those fired but not jailed so…
I noticed a while back that some assumed to know the answer to a question I now refuse to answer if asked, but what good would it do to have my answer to your last question if you don’t understand whether I “have a problem” with the current situation you’re trying to comparing it to?
Maybe it’s the cough syrup talking but I have a hard time following your line of thought.
I guess we are just in the agree to disagree category.
The question of whether Imus is a journalist or not is irrelevant. The title journalist doesn’t include only people reporting facts, but other people as well, like columnists for example or news anchors. It doesn’t even matter if Imus also worked at times in journalistic capacity. Journalists are entitled both by the principle of free speech and by journalistic ethics to voice opinions and make bad jokes, but fabricating stories is unethical from a journalistic point of view.
Look, if Tom Friedman, respected journalist of the New York Times, met with Mike and reported that he dresses as a clown, is in fact the leader of the Clown Liberation Front (the northern branch) that he had an interview with Mike in which Mike presented his manifesto to topple every blog on the net with his clownish antics, that would be a fabricated news story, and unethical. However, if he said that Mike is behaving like a clown, and should probably dress as one so everyone knows that he is a clown, that would either be an opinion or a joke or both, and in either case it is protected both by freedom of speech and journalistic ethics.
The idea that Imus’s racist or sexist jokes are a breech of journalistic ethics because he somehow presented them as news is absurd, and is indicative of someone who is either a clown or does not understand the difference between voicing opinions (or bad joke) and fabricating news stories.
Again: 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.
Now you have as much as said he can’t. Thank you.
Saying Imus isn’t a journalist is like saying a reporter caught fabricating a story isn’t a journalist — as far as they’ve disqualified themselves as journalists, they should be fired from passing their non-journalism as journalism. Thank you for confirming — along with the NABJ and Steve Capus’s firing — that Imus is not a journalist.
And no ņìggër, kike, or pussy jokes have been tolerated by a news brand from any of your examples.
“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.”
I don’t think it’s really possible to mischaracterize a position as bizarre as that. Allow me to counter it: Perhaps people are coming to this website because they ARE “looking for” my “commentary;” that they’re not, in fact, looking for loopy responses such as yours, and they consider YOU to be whining. Howzabout that possibility?
PAD
Can I skip the stout and just hit the cough syrup? I keep trying to make sense of ‘is post, and it’s just not coming.
Although ‘e does seem to ahve perfected the old “keep repeating something…no matter how dumb it sounds…over and over until people start to believe it” routine.
“Although ‘e does seem to ahve perfected the old “keep repeating something…no matter how dumb it sounds…over and over until people start to believe it” routine.”
Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don’t think there’s a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There’s also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn’t make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.
Posted by: Peter David at April 26, 2007 09:06 AM
Perhaps people are coming to this website because they ARE “looking for” my “commentary;”
YES. BINGO! I actually LIKE your commentaries. I get something out of them. Quite a lot, actually. For example, your commitment to the principle of free speech, manifested in both your words and your deeds, has inspired me to also commit to that principle. Plus, your cogent arguments about the flap over Imus helped me shape my own thinking about the issue.
Your fiction writings are indeed what drew me to begin reading your commentaries, but it’s the quality of the commentaries that keeps me coming back. I love John Byrne’s artwork, but I stopped going to his online forum because I didn’t find any value in his opinions. Your creative work and your editorials are separate things and I judge them separately.
Posted by: Peter David at April 26, 2007 09:06 AM
…that they’re not, in fact, looking for loopy responses such as [Me’s,] and they consider [him] to be whining. Howzabout that possibility?
He shoots, he SCORES!
Posted by: Micha at April 26, 2007 09:22 AM
Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don’t think there’s a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There’s also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn’t make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.
To be honest, Micha, I don’t think Mike even really believes in it, in the sense of it being a deeply held belief that he is fighting to present. I just think, as Bill Myers has suggested before me, that Mike picks what he percieves to be weaknesses and attacks with whatever he thinks will work best. Because it’s all about winning with Mike. (Though what it is he thinks he’s winning is beyond me. And most rational people, I think…)
That said, though, he is entertaining at times (albeit tiring after prolonged exposure). He’s almost raised trolling to the level of perfomance art.
And I really don’t think there’s a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike.
Paint thinner, glue, lawn chemicals, household cleaners or industrial toxic waste inhaled or consumed in quantities just shy of being fatally toxic?
There’s also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn’t make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.
But we can always dream, can’t we?
Hmmm, bizzaro html stuff has somehow not shown all of what I bolded. The above was in response to this, which was indeed from Micha, as the only surviving text from the Great Bolding Collapse of Aught-Seven –
Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don’t think there’s a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There’s also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn’t make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 26, 2007 10:33 AM
“And I really don’t think there’s a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike.”
“Paint thinner, glue, lawn chemicals, household cleaners or industrial toxic waste inhaled or consumed in quantities just shy of being fatally toxic?”
I would add a few drops of Tabasco sauce for taste.
“That said, though, he is entertaining at times (albeit tiring after prolonged exposure). He’s almost raised trolling to the level of performance art.”
Yes, that’s the attitude I have taken to his posts, treating them as comedy, however…
“To be honest, Micha, I don’t think Mike even really believes in it, in the sense of it being a deeply held belief that he is fighting to present.”
I don’t know if Mike holds opinions he knows to be nonsense just for the fun of it. If that is the case he should win an academy award for never breaking character and appear on the Actors Studio to explain how he does it.
But what if he has some kind of disorder that affects the way he processes information. This option bothers me because how do you deal with someone like that? Am I being cruel toward a disabled person by conversing with Mike? I ignored Bill Myers request to stop talking to Mike, because I didn’t consider these conversations significantly harmful to me. But if it is harmful to him then that’s a completely different consideration. I find it difficult to ignore him considering his constant posting on this board. But if I’m indulging a mean streak on someone who is not responsible for his own actions by talking to Mike then I should stop.
“I just think, as Bill Myers has suggested before me, that Mike picks what he percieves to be weaknesses and attacks with whatever he thinks will work best. Because it’s all about winning with Mike.”
That’s also possible, namely that he prefers to win an argument by making absurd claims and holding to them until everybody tires of him rather than accept someone else’s point of view. But it is hard to imagine something like that.
Micha,
Here’s two leads to better make an informed decision. I take no responsibility for the damage they may do to your mind.
http://www.çhìçkëņšøûp4ŧhëdámņëd.com/
http://www.sevenquestions.com/new7q/mikeleung.shtml
You are a believer:
You agreed unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity — which is the antithesis of Peter’s stated opinions.
You are also a believer:
You also agreed unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity. It ain’t Rocket Surgery.
I don’t believe unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity? What’s not to believe?
It’s a simple point. I never said whether or not I felt Imus should have been fired. To ask me whether I felt those on the Hollywood Blacklist should have been fired for comparison to my opinion on Imus’ firing without knowing it makes no sense.
I didn’t say the people who did wrong didn’t do anything wrong. It’s dumb to even try to pretend I said so. Some of the people on the Hollywood Blacklist did nothing wrong. You never said which of them you wanted to compare to Imus. I just reread your comments, and you did not specify those who were at fault or those who didn’t go to jail. You even compare Don Imus to Dalton Trumbo who was jailed.
I don’t consider it whining when I got the direct and nearly instant responses that I wanted from those I’m talking to. (We haven’t really talked about any of my issues with you in days.) I realize now your words have made some impact, but have you spoken with any members of the NABJ to change their minds on the issue? I think that would be the most direct and effective way to get anything done.
Everybody here including myself found this place because they know PAD personally or knows him as a comic book writer. We’re all here for PAD. I don’t know a single person who heard about Imus and thought to come here. My point is that anyone who feels the way you do might want to speak to those who aren’t seeking you and won’t hear you unless you go to them.
I didn’t say the people who did wrong didn’t do anything wrong. It’s dumb to even try to pretend I said so.
It seemed to me that when you said No matter what some of them did, you’re still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it. you wwere saying just that. true, that would be a dumb statement but, and I don’t mean this to be as insulting as I know it sounds, in my opinion you haven’t been particularly great at expressing your opinions. Maybe it’s me.
Some of the people on the Hollywood Blacklist did nothing wrong. You never said which of them you wanted to compare to Imus.
I thopught that the question I asked–So if we have a person who was pro-soviet union at a time when that regime was murdering thousands and he or she doesn’t go to jail but is fired and prevented from working in their profession because people don’t like their politics…would you have a problem with that?–was doing just that–comparing the present situation to a person who was blacklisted for no greater crime than having a foolish and unpopular political position (which is to say, no “crime” at all).
If you don’t want to answer or feel the question is not worth answering, fine, I’ll be crestfallen but my faith will somehow sustain me.
As PAD clarified his position – yes, it is possible that no clarification was necessary – I suppose he is right that it is unseemly for an association of journalists to call for censorship, or at least counterproductive, but in light of his position that there should be virtually no censorship, prior restraint, or any other restriction of free speech, I would ask this: If Don Imus should be allowed to say foolish and offensive things regarding race, gender and sexuality – because censorship is BAD – why should this organization be allowed to say foolish and offensive things regarding free speech?
PAD wondered whether I thought he never had to deal with readers angry with his political or social positions. To answer, no, I was fairly confident he had faced such things – obviously, I am only one example of those who have criticized him harshly. The point I was trying to get at is this: He has a good deal of real world experience with publishers, and I am certain he realizes that any publisher of his or someone else’s work is likely to determine his tenure on a title and continued employment based on profitability: Poor sales figures = dismissal. Angry sponsors withdrawing advertising = dismissal. Making the publisher/producer/network angry even without the preceding actions = possible dismissal. Isn’t that the main reason Imus is off the air?
Just as more important news was pushing this off the radar screen–Rosie leaves the view! Alec Baldwin calls his own kid a pig!–here comes some interesting news about the CBS contract Imus had.
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/05/03/360-on-imus-contract/#more-5796
Company [CBS Radio] acknowledges its familiarity with the program Conducted by Artist [Imus] on the station [WFAN] prior to company’s ownership thereof and it, and its familiarity with the reviews and comments, both favorable and unfavorable concerning Artist and his material by critics, reviewers and writers of the various media both in New York and nationally. Company acknowledges that Artist’s services to be rendered hereunder are of a unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial and personal character and that programs of the same general type and nature containing these components are desired by Company and are consistent with Company rules and policies.
I’d say his odds of getting a good chunk of that 40 million he says he is owed just went up.
“I’d say his odds of getting a good chunk of that 40 million he says he is owed just went up.”
Personally, I think it’d be interesting if he filed suit against the NABJ, Sharpton and Jackson. It might be argued that they embarked on an orchestrated campaign of character assassination and defamation that cost him his livelihood. I’ve no idea if it would hold water, but it’d be interesting to see.
PAD
He would have a hard time winning a defamation lawsuit since he pretty much admitted to every characterization they made about his statement. He could try to argue against the characterization of being a racist but that’s awfully hard to do and all of his past jokes, serious or not, would come back to haunt him.
I’ve thought all along that the lesson that many might get out of this is to admit nothing, no matter how in the wrong you may be. No apology was going to work. He would have been better to go the Clarence Thomas route and go on the offensive, hoping to scare off the attacks.
Apparently there was also a clause in the contract that he had to be warned before being fired. If that’s the case they may have to cough up a lot of money to make this go away and there is always the possibility that Imus has enough money to not want to accept ANY settlement. he may want to instead hold their feet to the fire and take a few with him–if they encouraged him to be controversial and ignored far more egregious examples of “racial humor” on the show he might succeed in at the very least getting Al Sharpton et al after some of the same executives that he feels threw him to the wolves.
Yeah, it WOULD be interesting…
From his contract, it does look like CBS owes him the $40 million, but his public role is one of informality. Taking CBS to court may demonstrate enough of a counter to this informal public role as to make it difficult to take him sincerely as a performer, not to mention making him look difficult to future broadcasting opportunities. I think Imus will have to choose between retaliating by going for the $40 million and retaliating by rebuilding his show, but not both.
If Imus takes CBS to court, his lawyer may still be able to refer to the contract without needing Imus to testify. But if he takes Sharpton, Jackson, and/or the NABJ to court, it seems likely he will need to testify to the damage they’ve done. He would have to be a fool to allow himself to be sworn in — and face answering under oath for everything he’s ever said — for the sake of retaliation.
“…all of his past jokes, serious or not, would come back to haunt him.”
In a way, it could also haunt CBS, too. Imus has a history of this kind of statement. What specifically would separate these statements from any of his other ones? Sure, Imus was the one who said these things, but CBS was the one who stuck the mike in his face so that everyone ELSE could hear it. If anyone from CBS claims they didn’t know Imus could talk like that, they’d lose a lot of credibility. They don’t call ’em Shock Jocks because they’ve built a static charge by walking across a carpet in their socks, after all.
In a way, it could also haunt CBS, too.
Absolutely. The same thing that will make it hard for him to win a defamation lawsuit will make it easy for him to win against CBS. Which is where the money is, anyway.
At his age and health (which is to say, death warmed over) I don’t know how much he really wants or needs to win by starting over (and quite possibly failing). Winning by making CBS pay through the nose (and look like craven cowards to boot) might have a lot of appeal.
A court victory won’t establish Imus was the real deal as a comeback will after being protested and ousted as he’s been. The best retaliation for Imus is to return to broadcasting and harvesting tremendous ratings. (Even a successful podcast will accomplish this but, not to diminish the importance of hiring well, he seems to need the support of a team to hold a large listening audience.) Anything he does counterproductive to this — like his pleading that he is actually a good person, and maybe even his apology — demonstrates he was successful in spite of his not really knowing what he was doing.
And the fallout continues:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070512/D8P31G880.html
Asian Slurs End Shock Jocks’ Show on CBS
What amazes me is that you can actually get a job as a “shock jock” when your alleged talent is to call up a Chinese restaurant and order “shrimp flied lice”. These guys make Howard Stern look like Oscar Wilde.
Well, what do you think it means to navigate a culture where the highest paid broadcasters cater to privileges exclusive of you? You’re amazed in your middle age at what the more vulnerable segments of the American population stopped being amazed at when, to take a public example, the state Bush/Cheney campaign chair systematically flushed votes from black counties in Florida.
(If you want a more intimate example: when someone enforces the taboo of even talking about privilege by ridiculing his strawmen of you obsessing over the evil of salt.)
Sometimes it’s hard to decide whether to agree with Mike, because he’s writing in some alien language.
I think that if one protects all forms of free speech one must necessarily also protect speech which calls for the silencing of others’ free speech. Let’s compare this to the famous Nazi parade in Skokie: The orthodox ACLU position (which I reluctantly support) was that free speech and free assembly concerns required that a Nazi parade not be banned. This is so despite the obvious fact that the Nazis have no record of supporting such free speech and free assembly for others. In the case of the NABJ, it would be a denial of their free speech rights to forbid them to say what they want about Don Imus – even though their statement is a call for denying Don Imus the rights they are exercising.
The right to free speech includes the right to speak against free speech!
Feel free to give me something other to think than that what you mean by “some alien language” is “reason distilled to a purity I am unfamiliar with.”
As far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.
As I’ve said this repeatedly, this simple disqualification seems to be another example of reason distilled to a purity with which you are unfamiliar being dismissed as an alien language.
“Feel free to give me something other to think than that what you mean by ‘some alien language’ is ‘reason distilled to a purity I am unfamiliar with'” is as good an example of what I meant as there could ever be. I’ll (perhaps unwisely) give Mike the benefit of the doubt: Perhaps he has a clear idea of what he wants to say; He just hasn’t made it comprehensible to English-speakers. I will agree that libel, plagiarism and fabrication of stories are unacceptable in journalism, and also that they have nothing to do with free speech.
If we are to have unfettered free speech, one effect will be that speech intolerant of free speech will be every bit as protected as that favoring it. While it can seem unfair, it is unavoidable and much less harmful than the alternative.
Bringing all of this back to PAD’s initial post, I am sure that in defending Imus’s right to say ugly things he never suggested that he supported or approved of such things; He just felt that they were covered by free speech. That is probably correct. Where I differ is in how to react to the NABJ’s response. PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus’s statements were not; I believe it was an expression of NABJ’s own free speech – as protected as Imus’s, and perhaps no more objectionable. For journalists to want to suppress free speech is disturbing, certainly, but everyone is free to be foolish. Imus has expressed that freedom for decades.
“Where I differ is in how to react to the NABJ’s response. PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus’s statements were not.”
Unfortunatly, this was not what PAD said or believes (if I understand him correctly).
I think what PAD said is closer to: “for journalists to want to suppress free speech is disturbing,” and, in his opinion, inappropriate, but certainly permissable.
I believe that if you understand PAD’s view correctly you will find that there doesn’t seem to be any real difference between you two.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 09:22 AM
…PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus’s statements were not
Jeffrey Frawley, I’m a bit dismayed that after Peter, myself, and several others have explained again and again (and again… and again… and… oh God…) the difference between criticizing someone’s actions and opposing their right to act in that way, there are still those who fail to understand the distinction. That said, I’m going to try to do something I haven’t done in awhile: I’m going to try to be the “nice, reasonable, patient Bill Myers” people believed me to be when I first hooked up with this blog, and try to explain this once again in a nice way.
Peter never said what the NABJ did was “impermissible.” He said they betrayed what should be one of their core principles. There is a difference.
There is also a difference between the First Amendment and the greater principle of free speech. The First Amendment protects speech (or at least it is supposed to) from undue governmental restrictions. But there are other forces that can restrict freedom of speech. If a newspaper chooses not to run a letter to the editor, it has restricted freedom of speech to some extent even though said newspaper has not run afoul of the First Amendment. When Peter, myself, and others here refer to “free speech,” we are referring to a broader principle of which the First Amendment is merely one component.
If Peter had declared that the NABJ had run afoul of the First Amendment and called for the government to slap an injunction on them, your point would be valid. But Peter did no such hypocritical thing. He did not once ever question the NABJ’s right to do what they did, he asserted it was not the right thing to do. (And I happen to agree with him.)
The guarantee of free speech provided by the First Amendment does not include a guarantee of freedom from criticism. And you can support someone’s right to do something while still believing that it was the wrong thing to do.
While this will fall on deaf ears, since Mike has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapable of relating to normal people, what amazed me was the simple lack of humor in their “joke”. It isn’t funny. It’s older than dirt. And it wasn’t funny back then either. This point was lost on you because, well, you’re not a very funny guy.
But feel free to yammer on in your usual way. At this point you’d have to cure cancer and/or rescue a busload of Nigerian Orphans for anyone to think better of you.
Jeffrey, I think Bill Myers and Micha have explained the issue well.
I’m sorry I brought this up. But as long as I’m here…Opie and Anthony are also in hot…well, moderately tepid water over a bit where a homeless man described raping Condi Rice. Not the smartest move when their satellite radio company (XM) is trying to survive with a government approved merge with Sirius but they should survive since 1-they are on sattelite radio so if one is offended it’s your own dámņ fault for buying the service and listening to it and 2-they picked the correct victim. I don’t see Al Sharpton protesting anything bad said about Ms. Rice.
It’s interesting how this is playing out. Radio is being singled out to an amazing degree–imagine if those two shlock jocks had read a transcript of any South Park episode involving Tuong Lu Kim, (The City Wok Guy). This seems to have been the case for a while. I wonder why radio is subject to such harsh restrictions while other media gets a freer pass?
OK, so PAD didn’t like what NABJ said, and said so: PAD thinks that is fine. NABJ didn’t like what Imus said, and said so: PAD doesn’t think that is fine. Imus talked about nappy headed hos – which neither PAD nor NABJ liked, but PAD thinks he should be left alone, and NABJ does not.
If this is a free speech issue, NABJ can say whatever it wants without PAD’s permission. Here’s the question: Most of us agree that PAD can say what he wants – It’s a free country (theoretically); Most of us feel Imus’s comments were offensive (Let’s hope “nappy headed hos” raises some hackles); Many, but not quite so many, of us think NABJ should not have taken a position for punishing free speech (It seems right to support the maximum journalistic independence possible). Why does NABJ’s offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus’s does not?
I’m afraid that PAD cannot escape from the notion that everyone should feel free to agree with him, but such foolishness as disagreement doesn’t pass muster.
Micha: “(Y)ou will find that there doesn’t seem to be any real difference between you two”? Well, I doubt either PAD or I would go that far. As far as I can see, the difference is this: Both of us think PAD should be allowed to say what he wants; One of us thinks NABJ’s rights are different, and the other doesn’t. I’ll agree that NABJ shouldn’t favor restraint of free speech. I’ll disagree on whether doing so isn’t exactly the sort of free speech he adores.
“Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM
Micha: “(Y)ou will find that there doesn’t seem to be any real difference between you two”? Well, I doubt either PAD or I would go that far. As far as I can see, the difference is this: Both of us think PAD should be allowed to say what he wants; One of us thinks NABJ’s rights are different, and the other doesn’t. I’ll agree that NABJ shouldn’t favor restraint of free speech. I’ll disagree on whether doing so isn’t exactly the sort of free speech he adores.”
Honestly Jeffrey, I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. You keep misrepresenting PAD’s view.
“One of us thinks NABJ’s rights are different.”
That’s not PAD’s view.
This is PAD’s view:
“NABJ shouldn’t favor restraint of free speech.”
“doing so isn’t exactly the sort of free speech he adores.”
Yet he is not saying this exercise of free speech by the NABJ should be restricted. He is only criticizing it.
This is not that complicated.
Neither is the answer to your question:
“Why does NABJ’s offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus’s does not?”
PAD addressed it in his original post:
“The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment.”
“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.”
It’s all quite simple.
PAD is not calling for restricting the free speech of the NABJ, he is criticizing them for using their free speech to get Imus shut down instead of standing to higher principles.
You can either disagree with his criticism of the actions of the NABJ, but, according to your own statement, support his right to criticize them. Or you can agree with his criticism and support his right to criticize the NABJ. But, whether you agree or disagree with him, please don’t misrepresent his point of view.
Jeffrey, I’m really not getting what you’re saying. Nobody as far as I can see, is advocating that the NABJ be stripped of its ability to say anything, however foolish. But surely we all have the right to call it foolish, yes?
If the ACLU suddenly advocated for the firing of Bill O’Reilly because of the hurtful things he’s said about them, that would be grounds for us calling them on it, right? I mean, they can do it if they really want to. Nobody can stop them. But it would be dumb and I think anyone would be well within their rights to call it as such.
It looks like you’re really stretching here to find something to play the hypocrite card on PAD and it just isn’t there.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM
One of us thinks NABJ’s rights are different, and the other doesn’t.
No. Peter never said the NABJ didn’t have the right to call for Imus’ firing.
Think of it this way: you “reluctantly” support the position that the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie. Using your logic, you must then refrain from criticizing them in any way.
Criticizing how someone behaves is not the same as saying they don’t have the right to behave that way.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM
I’ll agree that NABJ shouldn’t favor restraint of free speech.
That’s all Peter, myself, and many other posters are saying. No more, no less.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM
I’ll disagree on whether doing so isn’t exactly the sort of free speech he adores.
Peter never said otherwise. But, again, supporting someone’s right to do something doesn’t mean you forfeit the right to oppose it. Peter has never once called for any retaliation against the NABJ. He merely opined that they were wrong.
Again, using your logic, you have no right to criticize the Nazis who marched on Skokie for their hateful, monstrous views.
The problem may be that PAD assumes the NABJ’s interest must be the general welfare of journalism, while it may prefer to think of itself as devoted to the general welfare of African-Americans. From the point of view of journalistic freedom, punishment for expressing oneself is bad. From the point of view of pro-African-Americanism, it makes perfect sense in this case. As a comparison, suppose an organization which consisted of young females supported a program which helped young females at the expense of old males. Saying “This doesn’t improve the situation overall, and it hurts old men” would not be much of an argument to make the organization change its ways – It would only be looking out for the interests of its members. Perhaps the NABJ sees itself as “the national association of BLACK journalists” rather than “the national association of black JOURNALISTS.” Cui bono?
Jeffrey Frawley: The problem may be that PAD assumes the NABJ’s interest must be the general welfare of journalism, while it may prefer to think of itself as devoted to the general welfare of African-Americans.
Luigi Novi: Then it should state this in its name. by calling itself an association of JOURNALISTS, it’s making a statement that its devotion is to the ideals of, oh, I dunno….JOURNALISM?
The fact remains that criticizing the validity of one’s statement and calling for their right to make that statement to be curtailed are two different things.
Well, just to remain as uncooperative as possible, let me throw this out: They call themselves the National Association of Black Journalists because A. the organization has members nationwide (I bet this is true); B. they are an association (again, I’d be surprised if they are not); C. their membership is for the most part black (very likely) and D. the membership consists of journalists (probable). With that out of the way, they choose to express themselves as they wish, rather than asking Luigi Novi what he thinks.
“Criticizing the validity of one’s statement” is a little bit different from saying that an association of journalists has no business saying something with which you disagree. “Criticizing the validity…” is pointing out the error in the reasoning of a statement. The other is more of an ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say.