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
• 
Luigi, when I disagreed with many things you (not PAD) said, your responses accused me of misunderstanding what PAD was trying to say. It’s not any more complicated than that.
I’d say that Imus became trouble for his employers when the crassness of his statements was publicized. Certainly NABJ wanted him out, and certainly it publicized his stupidity: So what? By your reasoning, the Washington Post and the New York Times were wrong to publicize Watergate. (After all, if no one had known about it Nixon’s popularity would have remained much higher.) To say “NABJ consists of journalists; I know what is best for journalists – defense of all free speech; NABJ didn’t do what I said it should: NABJ was wrong to not let free speech concerns decide its position” is definitely quite absolutist. It presumes that free speech as an issue must always trump other interests. It is very defensible to say you think they were wrong; It is not defensible to say they can only be right to do things as you decide.
“If you were to say that Peter’s criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depend on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, you would be wrong.”
You’re only saying that because you’re an idiot. But that’s OK, it’s a valid life style.
Well, considering someone you persist in calling an idiot corrected you, and you can’t disqualify that correction, it must suck to be you. Thank you for demonstrating how a valid lifestyle is not a casual accomplishment.
Micha: “You’re only saying that because you’re an idiot” is a little bit less responsive to Mike’s statement than it could be. He says a lot of things that are either mistaken or impenetrable, but his assertion that PAD’s criticism of NABJ has something to do with unconditional free speech isn’t far off the mark. PAD values free speech at least highly enough to trump NABJ’s members’ interest in punishing Imus’s bigotry. We could argue forever whether he is right to place free speech that high (I think he might be), but it seems disingenuous to pretend he isn’t doing so. Please – and I’m not joking – tell me if I am mistaken in thinking his argument is something like this: “NABJ is quite upset about Imus’s statement. Really, I do understand that. Nonetheless, It is clear to me that, as journalists, they are foolish to advocate restrictions on free speech. They really shouldn’t do so!” I’m not convinced that their action IS restriction of free speech, but that is still the issue at hand.
Micha – what do YOU think PAD was saying, if it wasn’t that opposing free speech seemed a bad mistake for an association of journalists to make? (with the proviso that, of course, he didn’t want to prevent NABJ from saying what it wanted.) I’m coming around to believing PAD’s statement wasn’t all that outrageous – but I still quibble with the absolutism of his position. This is one of those areas in which PAD has made his philosophy quite clear: You, Mike, others and I can all express ourselves as we please.
“NABJ is quite upset about Imus’s statement. Really, I do understand that. Nonetheless, It is clear to me that, as journalists, they are foolish to advocate restrictions on free speech. They really shouldn’t do so!”
I think that is indeed PAD’s point of view. and this is the argument people should respond to.
“I’m not convinced that their action IS restriction of free speech, but that is still the issue at hand.”
I’m not convinced that it is true that they caused Imus’s firing. I have no way of judging without research, so I’m leaving that question open.
It is also true that the NABJ did not silence Imus to the degree we’re familiar from more totalitarian places.
However PAD is right on the principle. What the NABJ said basically was that the best way to counter Imus’s offensive language is to remove it from the airways. That’s a very problematic position for journalists to hold.
PAD’s position is in no way absolutist. The case we have here is a classic free speech case. Imus said something that was found offensive by many people — nothing more nothing less. we don’t have here any of the cases where freedom of speech is placed against a clear opposite value. Had he called for the murder of black athletes, or slandered, or fabricated a story, then we would have a different kind of discussion. If you believe that there is an opposing ideal that is necessary to prefer in this case over free speech, you have to present it, and then they should be weighed against each other. You don’t seem to have done that. At best you said we should sympathize with the gut reaction of blacks to Imus’s words, which I do. But then the discussion should be about sensitivety to the gut reaction of blacks. But it wasn’t about that either.
“Micha: “You’re only saying that because you’re an idiot” is a little bit less responsive to Mike’s statement than it could be.”
Not really. Had Mike been a person capable of processing information and discussing it in a meanigful way then I would have been very responsive and patient with him even if I found his position absurd. I would have presented a counter argument and tried to explain calmly and in detail why I think he is wrong, at which point we would have either reached common ground or agreed to disagree. This is usually my policy. In fact, this was what I did when he presented one of his first, and most absurd statements. I treated him like someone who deserves a serious consideration. However, if you look at most of what he’s been saying in any of the threads o this board, the way he’s been saying them, and the way he responded to the points of view of others, you will see that Mike has some serious cognitive problems that make him incapable of processing the kind of response you expect me to make. so, all that can be done is to ignore him; respond to his nonsense for the benefit of others on this thread; or laugh at his antics, which is what I decided to do at times.
“His assertion that PAD’s criticism of NABJ has something to do with unconditional free speech isn’t far off the mark.”
You are mistaken to assume that the way you are processing PAD’s position , namely: “PAD values free speech at least highly enough to trump NABJ’s members’ interest in punishing Imus’s bigotry,” and the way Mike is processing it are in any way related to each other. Despite my annoyance with some of your posts here, you are clearly able to process what I and PAD and others are saying, and respond to it. Mike cannot. By this stage his argument has become a self contained logical loop that has little to do with Imus, the NABJ or PAD or what they say (although it wasn’t originally like that). You can see this loop three or four posts above. By running repeatedly around this logical loop like a rat in a maze Mike believes that he has refuted PAD, and is crowing about it repeatedly while ignoring completely the real issues. I do find his logical loops quite entertaining, like optical illusions. But I don’t take them seriously.
Micha, if you are certain that “you’re an idiot” is really the most responsive thing you can say, it’s not my business to gainsay it. When I said Mike wasn’t wrong to think PAD’s position had to do with free speech, that meant that I thought PAD’s position had to do with free speech – not that every (or any) part of Mike’s argument was correct. I’ll get some criticism for this analogy, but here goes:
Idi Amin: The grass is green.
Micha: Idi Amin is a dumb-ášš.
Jeff: And yet, the grass IS green.
Micha: Jeff, Jeff, Jeff…Why are you standing up for that dumb-ášš? He’s no good. Let’s not talk about grass; You’re just encouraging him.
It may be a very rare thing for Mike’s statement to be more accurate than yours, but on this very narrow subject, it is.
“Micha, if you are certain that “you’re an idiot” is really the most responsive thing you can say.”
It is not the most responsive thing I could say. I can be very responsive, as you may have noticed. However the kind of response you expect me to make is futile in the context of discussion with Mike, as experience teaches us. The only reason for me to respond would be to clarify to somebody else how big an idiot Mike is. Do you think that’s necessary?
“When I said Mike wasn’t wrong to think PAD’s position had to do with free speech, that meant that I thought PAD’s position had to do with free speech – not that every (or any) part of Mike’s argument was correct.”
Acually what you said was:
“He says a lot of things that are either mistaken or impenetrable, but his assertion that PAD’s criticism of NABJ has something to do with UNCONDITIONAL free speech isn’t far off the mark.”
Obviously PAD’s position has to do with free speech, and I never suspected that you agree with Mike’s position. I don’t think your positions are even related to each other on the issue of free speech, which was the point I was trying to make.
And you’re right, your analogy doesn’t work. You and Mike are not saying anything remotely similar, nor do I expect you to refrain from saying something you believe in because it may resemble something Mike says (which it doesn’t), nor am I worried that Mike will be encouraged by what you say. He is not affected by such things.
Do you wish to discuss the ‘grass’ that you’re talking about or the ‘grass’ that Mike is talking about. These are two seperate subjects. The truth is, I think we pretty much covered your position. And Mike’s position would only need to be discussed if there was a need to clarify something about it.
“It may be a very rare thing for Mike’s statement to be more accurate than yours, but on this very narrow subject, it is.”
Hardly. Your mistake is assuming that because mike talks about free speech he is actually saying something accurate that bears any relation to your point of view.
Do you believe that PAD supports ‘unconditional’ free speech including cases of journalists fabricating news stories?
Do you think that pointing out that journalists oppose fabricating news stories and therefore do not support ‘unconditional’ free speech is in any way relevant to PAD’s position, your position, or what Imus or the NABJ actually said?
If not, than what makes you consider Mike’s statement accurate in any way or form? It’s only accurate in the sense that he spelled the words ‘free speech’ correctly.
Jeff: “Micha: ‘You’re only saying that because you’re an idiot” is a little bit less responsive to Mike’s statement than it could be.'”
Micha: “Not really”
That’s where I got the idea that you disagree that calling Mike an idiot is less responsive than it could be. Translating that into real life speak, that means “No, Jeff, in fact, calling Mike an idiot is as responsive as it is possible to be.”Assuming that Mike is an idiot (no comment on that right now), if he says something that happens to be accurate, saying “Oh, he’s an idiot” doesn’t really get at the issue. It may be tedious to make a case, but it is more responsive than not doing so. I think my previous analogy works much better than you think it does – but it’s not likely I could convince you of something like that.
As to the matter of Mike’s assertion that opposing or refusing to protect falsified journalism is a failure to support free speech, yes: You are correct and he is not. Libel, plagiarism and fabricated news are not at all subject to free speech protections, be they absolute rights or something less. Libel and fraud statutes relate to such abuses.
Jeffrey, had Mike said something accurate I would not have called him an idiot. Since he said something idiotic, I called him an idiot.
Ordinarily I would not have called a person who said something idiotic an idiot. In fact I would have taken the time to explain to him why I feel he is wrong in a respectful manner, because I believe we all have our idiotic moments. But my past experience with Mike leads me to believe that any response other than ‘you’re an idiot’ to one of the many idiotic statements he makes is a complete waste of time. Perhaps it would have been better for me simply to ignore him, but I’m not perfect.
As to the question of whether or not Mike is an idiot you are free to look at his many many posts in this thread and in many other threads and judge for yourself. I am not alone in calling him an idiot. But if you feel the need to make your own diagnosis, either by talking to him or reading prior posts, be my guest.
“Do you believe that PAD supports ‘unconditional’ free speech including cases of journalists fabricating news stories?
Do you think that pointing out that journalists oppose fabricating news stories and therefore do not support ‘unconditional’ free speech is in any way relevant to PAD’s position, your position, or what Imus or the NABJ actually said?”
It comes down to something even simpler than that: Doing one’s job.
Imus’s job was to be a shock jock and say outrageous things on the air. He did his job…and was fired for it.
A journalist’s job is to report the news accurately and to the best of his ability. When a journalist fabricates stories, he is failing in his job, and failing spectacularly. On that basis, firing him is a reasonable, even necessary, course of action.
The nonsense that Mike was spouting about a journalist making stuff up being as equally protected as Imus being insulting is just typical reducto ad absurdum, which I personally think should be renamed reducto ad Mike since he so personifies it.
PAD
“As to the matter of Mike’s assertion that opposing or refusing to protect falsified journalism is a failure to support free speech, yes: You are correct and he is not. Libel, plagiarism and fabricated news are not at all subject to free speech protections, be they absolute rights or something less.”
Nor did I ever say they were. That’s where the disconnect comes from. Any rational person is aware of what I said and the distinctions I made. Mike is unaware of them. That tells you something about Mike.
PAD
PAD – Any disagreement I have with you on this issue is a fairly minor one of how one prioritizes free speech. In practice, I favor very broad freedom of speech – probably slightly less than you, but still very broad. My understanding of NABJ’s reasons for attacking Imus and compromising journalistic ethics has led me to quibble where it wasn’t necessary. Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don’t propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.
I suppose you win this one!
“Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don’t propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.”
Well, that’s the advantage of not being a free speech but-head (“I believe in free speech BUT–“)
“I suppose you win this one!”
Mwaaaahahahaha…
PAD
Wait’ll next time! Why, I’m SURE you’ll be bad one of these days. Ooooh, my brain hurts.
Wait’ll next time! Why, I’m SURE you’ll be bad one of these days. Ooooh, my brain hurts.
(If this posts twice, I’m not just being a bûŧŧhëád (the other kind) – My computer just lost this site for a moment when I tried to Post.
“I suppose you win this one!”
Well Jeffrey, that’s the difference between you and Mike — he would have claimed that he won, and in fact does just that.
“”I suppose you win this one!”
Mwaaaahahahaha…
PAD”
Terrific. Now you’ve created a monster. PAD’s going to go about trying to get all of us to tell him he’s “won” something.
I keed, I keed.
I’ll admit that the third or fourth thing I do when I come here…after checking thread titles, avoiding spoilers for shows that are on tape-delay for me…is look for a Mike post. His logic is like an Escher. It works because…well, you can’t really tell how or why it makes sense in any way that your brain recognizes as sense, but when you look at it, you just can’t see anything wrong with it. Other than knowing that it’s wrong. It can only exist on paper.
I suspect it will not be an every-day occurrence with me.
If PAD were to say my word is infallible, then I guess I’d have to defer to his genius – That’s one way of making me agree with him.
So, in new news, a pair of shock jocks has been fired for a racist bit.
I don’t live in their broadcast area, and wouldn’t tune in anyway, but I’m guessing, being shock jocks, this was far from the first time they did a bit that contained racist elements. But of course, the station had to wait for them to open their mouths…and for some group to complain…before firing them.
I’m totally concerned. Because, isn’t all humor made at the expense of someone else? The classic slipping on a banana peel…how funny is it to the poor person who’s just bruised their tailbone? Not funny at all. And I’m sure they’d be pretty ticked off at someone making a joke, as part of a show, at their expense.
I don’t think you’re required to agree with PAD all the time. Do you? In any case, you can agree, disagree, agree to disagree. The problems usually occur when someone behaves in a way that indicates he has no respect with other people and their opinions, does not seek to communicate with them, listen and respond to what they say, but simply wishes to pummel everybody relentlessly with wild, outragous statements. Usually this causes people here to get angry and undermines the purpose of this blog, which is, I think, communication and discussion.
“look for a Mike post. His logic is like an Escher.”
This is the simile I was looking for to describe Mike’s arguments. They are like the pictures of the stairs that are climbing up to themselves. When you first look at them and follow them with your eyes, it seems they are leading from the ground up to somewhere. But when you look again you realize that they start nowhere and end nowhere. Yet there’s still something mezmerizng about them.
Well, I suppose if you have to be a troll be an entertaining troll.
I’ve only heard the NABJ say Imus should be fired, not that he should be prohibited from broadcasting.
As far as Imus passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand, they were no more intolerent than if he were fabricating facts under a news brand — an intolerance that demonstrates journalistic integrity doesn’t depend on unconditional free speech.
Credibility. As far as Imus passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand, the news brands of NBC and CBS became tainted. The NABJ upheld a journalistic integrity all other news associations should be embarrassed to have neglected.
Thank you for admitting you haven’t presented, and can’t refer to, a counter argument to:
…
If by “processing” you mean overlook that Peter has said journalistic integrity depends on unconditional free speech, no I’m not overlooking what Peter has said and refuses to rephrase.
Reason is my shelter against your or anyone’s attempts to coerce me by ridicule. Privilege — as in the privilege to ignore in Peter’s favor what he has said — is your house. As I am displaying a logic distilled to a heretofore unknown purity, I have no intention of abandoning it while its benefits have yet to be inventoried. That’s why you’re stuck with me.
Jim Lehrer and Dave Barry are journalists who make stuff up, and I’m pretty sure you know very well that the right to fabricate stories is as protected in this country as is Imus passing ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes, even as journalism — you readily acknowledged the Imus firing isn’t a first amendment issue.
No one is protesting the Weekly World News — because the Weekly World News isn’t taken seriously as a news brand.
As for reducto ad Mike, as far as you are too fragile to address my simple reasoning, you should be embarrassed. Go to the outline of reason I keep posting and refute something. Anything. As far as you can’t refute it, why should I not refer to it as we refer any other truth?
There is no innovation that doesn’t come at the expense of some established paradigm. That is what Campbell meant when he said every act of creation is an act of destruction. All innovation is based on some form of disobedience.
What virtue is nurtured by “I can’t see anything wrong with it, but I know it’s wrong anyway?”
And within the scope of reason distilled to a heretofore unknown purity, I am free.
Isn’t our very model of the universe that the totality of being begins from and ends in nothing? Is Nirvana not the Sanskrit word for “nothing?”