I am so NOT the target audience for the weekday morning chatfest (although my mother adores it), but I had to tune in in order to see the aftermath of last week’s blow-up. Nothing was really solved during it: The women reiterated their positions and the only thing they all agreed upon was that it was time to move on. Which was a shame, because I think they should have all agreed that Barbara Walters was wrong. Although that’s not actually the main point I want to make, but we’ll get to it.
In case you missed it: Bill O’Reilly was spouting off about yet another thing he knew nothing about, namely the Muslim center. You remember the center: It was a place that was a complete non-issue until an Islamiphobic, right wing Ayn Rand worshipper in Long Island turned it into one because, y’know, that’s really the sort of opinion maker whom you want shaping public discourse.
In any event, O’Reilly kept hitting the same statistic over and over: That 70% of Americans surveyed were in opposition to the building of the center at Park 51. What he didn’t bother to mention was that there is opposition to the building of Muslim places of worship everywhere from Pennsylvania to California, which is religious bigotry no matter how you slice it. Anyway, O’Reilly kept shouting in an increasingly condescending manner about this same statistic until Joy Behar (Who?) and Whoopi Goldberg (okay, her I know) had had enough and walked off. This immediately prompted Barbara Walters (I’ve heard of her, too) to scold her companions like an angry school marm, declaring that this was exactly the sort of behavior that should not be displayed in the discussion of hot-button topics.
Except…sure it is. You don’t like a TV show? Change the channel. You don’t like what someone is saying? Either rebutt him or, if you feel there’s no point to be served, walk away from him. What you DON’T do is try to launch a punitive retaliatory strike through commercial means (i.e., boycotts) or attempt to stop them from being heard by–oh–shutting off his microphone. You know: The way Bill O’Reilly routinely does on his own show when he doesn’t like what someone is saying. If Goldberg had marched straight into the control room and had the director shut off O’Reilly’s mike, THEN he gets to complain…although it would be rich in irony.
But believe it or not, that’s not the point I’m interested in. The point is O’Reilly’s fixation on “Seventy percent of Americans don’t want this, and therefore they’re…” What? Right?
In 1958, 96% of white Americans who were surveyed firmly believed that laws against interracial marriage were right and just and should not be changed. That number has obviously shifted. At least I hope it has.
As recently as 2008, the majority of Americans surveyed believed that gays should not serve in the military. Yet just a couple of years later, the majority now believes that Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell should be repealed and gays should be allowed to serve their country.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the majority of Americans surveyed are initially clueless, particularly when it comes to hot button issues that are newly introduced? That their default reaction is like Grumpy in Snow White spouting off about the dangers of wicked wiles, and when pressed to explain precisely what they are, replies, “I don’t know, but I’m agin’ ’em!” But that given time to ponder it and even become educated about it, they may eventually come around? Bottom line, a poll may simply be an indicator of what people think before they’ve had the opportunity to, y’know, think.
Then again, who knows? In 2002, eight percent of Americans surveyed believe Elvis is still alive. As of February 2010, seven percent thought Elvis is alive. That’s almost statistically identical, so sometimes people become entrenched in beliefs and won’t budge. Doesn’t make the beliefs any less stupid.
PAD
• 
Amen.
Or to quote Terry Pratchett from The Fifth Elephant – “You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was “but we’ve always done it this way.” A million dead people can’t have been wrong, can they?
TAC
No argument there. But good lord, you watched the view??? Listening to those yentas is enough to make Gloria Steinem rethink women’s suffrage.
.
The first ten minutes. The moment they moved to another topic, I was gone.
.
PAD
I refuse to watch or listen to people like O’Reilly or Fox News or CNN. They belong to the group that believes whatever you say is true, as long as you say it loud enough and long enough.
No, i’m pretty sure they don’t believe that.
.
But they do believe that their viewers believe it.
Actually, based on that poll, 70% of Americans are against a mosque being built at the WTC site. Since it’s not a mosque, and it’s not at the WTC site, they aren’t actually against the center that’s being built. It’s a classic push poll, and it’s a horseshit statistic.
Well, that falls under the Grumpy Precept: They don’t actually KNOW what it is; all they know is, they’re agin’ it.
.
PAD
The “Center” IS a mosque with other fluff built around it. I love how Peter David says americans are clueless yet he is so informed. Stick to fantasy (i guess you already are) not to politics. It’s not your forte obviously.
According to Islamic tradition, a mosque can have no secular purpose – no gym, no basketball court, no meeting halls for rent; it can only be devoted to the worship of Allah. Therefore, Park 51 cannot be a “mosque”, it can only be (at most) a community center with an Islamic-oriented prayer room.
.
I love how Marcos claims to be so informed yet cannot be bothered to investigate the simplest facts about religions (other than his own, one might suppose). Stick to trolling (I guess you already are), not to comparative theology (or proper grammar and punctuation). It’s not your forte, obviously.
I have no problem with a mosque being built there. If they buy the property and follow the rules they have the right to build what they wish.
.
That said, if it is true that the “mosque” is NOT a mosque…why have I heard so many of the defenders of the mosque call it a mosque? That’s part of the problem–there are conflicting statements. I’ve seen some of the developers angry at the suggestion they were going to have the center coincide with an anniversary of the attacks but then I read an interview with one of the sponsors where they specifically said that groundbreaking might coincide with the 10th anniversary.
.
It has been described as a mosque by the organization building it and then they have denied that, giving the same reasons you gave.
.
None of that changes my opinion but I can see where people can feel like this is pretty disingenuous. Me, I say let them build it. If it is truly being done in the name of tolerance and peace and moderation, well, that’s good. If they instead are trying to, as critics say, mock the events of 9/11, well, that will surely backfire and make them look bad. Also good. A situation where either good people will look good or bad people will look bad? Win/win.
Here’s an interview with Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project.
.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/07/qa-with-sharif-el-gamal-about.html
.
“With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it’s a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all.”
.
Perhaps the defintion of a mosque is not so cut and dry as you think? Or the developers are unaware of the facts you have at your disposal. At any rate, one can forgive Marco some confusion on his part, given the ever changing “facts” in the matter. (That does not excuse his rudeness.)
That said, if it is true that the “mosque” is NOT a mosque…why have I heard so many of the defenders of the mosque call it a mosque?
.
Because they’ve made the same mistake liberals always make: Allowing the opposition to frame the argument. The same as–for instance–referring to opponents of legalized abortion as “Pro-Lifers” instead of “Anti-Choice” which was what they are.
.
PAD
It’s not your forte obviously.
.
Meanwhile, your forte is simply to be a complete asshat.
.
I’d recommend sticking to facts and intelligent conversation, but that would likely mean you’ll never post a comment again. That may be for the best.
When I was talking about the “mosque” defenders I was not actually thinking about those who defended it from a pundit standpoint–I was thinking of Feisal Abdul Rauf and Sharif el-Gamal, people who are actually building it. Whether or not they are liberals or not is a question I don’t know but I suspect their calling it a mosque had little to do with liberal ideology.
.
Of course, it seems to me that any argument that it really isn’t a mosque cedes the point to the mosque opponents–why should it matter? If you believe, as I do, that they have the right to build a mosque it is of no significance whatsoever whether or not this qualifies as one (and I have had little luck in finding an ironclad definition of what is or is not a mosque.)
Perhaps the defintion of a mosque is not so cut and dry as you think?
.
It reads pretty plainly to me: the mosque takes up only a small portion of the community center; the mosque is open to all.
.
Those who misread that are those who probably really want to anyways.
Ok, so the mosque part IS a mosque???? Like I said, it doesn’t and should not matter…but it kind of drives me nuts that people are tossing off “There is no mosque” and “there is a mosque” with equal degrees of authority.
Not to sound all Clintonian on you, Bill, but part of it is depending on your definition of “Mosque.” I think what’s happening is, the word itself conjures mental images of a towering spire. Basically, people hear “mosque” and they picture a minaret.
.
There’s not going to be anything like that.
.
The broader definition of “mosque” is a Muslim center of worship, a word analogous to “church” or “synagogue.” There will be a place of worship, a mosque, within the center. But that place of worship will also be interfaith; others can use it as well. This is simply a matter of semantics: If it’s interfaith, a Muslim would call it a mosque while a Christian would call it a “chapel.” And even if it were solely Muslim, all it’s going to do is formalize a space that was ALREADY being used for worship (the abandoned Burlington coat factory) without one whisper of protest from anyone…right up until that anti-Muslim woman I alluded to made it a cause celebre. And again, she is protesting the building of mosques everywhere in the country. The fact that it’s at Park 51 is beside the point; it could be Park 1051 and she’d still be leading the charge.
.
Anyway, when people are saying, “There won’t be a mosque,” I think what they’re really trying to say is that there won’t be a minaret.
.
Plus there’s going to be a ton of other stuff in the facility as well. I don’t see anyone objecting to the concept of a community center or a basketball court. So when you consider that they are objecting solely to one room in the facility that’s to be used for worship, and not to anything else there, the pure religious bias becomes that much more evident.
.
PAD
Sounds good to me. As I mentioned, I don’t see how this could end badly–even if the paranoid anti-Muslim people are proven 100% correct and the center becomes a seething cauldron of islamofascism, hëll, that would be the BEST thing that ever happened to those folks. I would rate that about as likely as a Kenyan birth certificate for one Adolph Mussolini Obama showing up any time soon.
All I know is that the ladies who walked off the panel in response to O’Reilly are better people than I could ever be. Honestly, I don’t think that I could manage anything even remotely resembling civility in an encounter with Bill O’Reilly–I’d be far more likely to punch him in the mouth, just for the satisfaction of closing that flapping jaw for a moment or two.
.
I know it’s wrong, I know that violence doesn’t win an argument or solve (most) problems, and I know that it would end up with me under arrest and O’Reilly made a virtual martyr to his fans. But I also know that I have enough trouble holding my temper when listing to him spew his stupidity on television–having that jáçkášš up close and personal would simply be too much of a temptation to resist.
.
Chuck
Thorne Smith – The Night Life of the Gods
Actually, I think Barbara Walters was right. Whoopi and Joy overreacted, and instead of calmly, rationally debating with O’Reilly, they flipped out and behaved like children. What else was Barbara to do but treat them as such?
I don’t believe we’re speaking of the same Bill O’Reilly. The one from Fox “News” doesn’t engage in calm, rational debate, and attempting to calmly and rationally debate him would be about as productive as attempting to moderate a debate between the ghosts of Malcolm X and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Come on, aren’t you just the slightest bit curious to see how O’Reilly would react if faced with an argument he doesn’t have a counter for when he can’t go to commercial?
I’m not at all curious; I know exactly what he’d do. He’d increase the volume. He’s one of those people who, if he can’t be right in his indoor voice, will not hesitate to be wrong in his outdoor voice.
.
PAD
I’ve often wondered what O’Reilly would do if he had a guest’s mike cut off and the guest either…
A: Raised his voice so that O’Reilly’s own mike would pick it up (that would be my own first choice–I know how to project).
B: Got out of his chair and walked over behind O’Reilly so O’Reilly’s own mike would pick him up.
Who cares what polls say, go with the law and let it go!
So Mr. David are you with Bill Maher thinking that the majority of Americans are stupid?
The majority of humans are stupid.
.
And, while i don’t think that i am – it’s quite possible you (or someone else) might be willing to offer a rebuttal…
I kinda lean toward people not being stupid, just only caring about things that effect them directly. To measure someones’ intelligence is a tricky thing and depends on the situation.
I think everybody is stupid about something.
.
PAD
Yep
Yep
Yep
U-huh
“I think everybody is stupid about something.”
.
PAD
.
—
That is the dumbest thign I ever heard…
.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
.
Normally I hear that as “Everybody is ignorant — jsut on different subjects.”
.
Which is often followed up with, “Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is permanent.”
“God help me …” And then there are those who would sugg4est such shows are proof God doesn’t exist.
This is why liberal pundits like to point out that people should not be allowed to vote on other people’s rights, even if the voters constitute a (bigoted) majority. That’s why they’re called “rights.”
problem being we can always expand the definition of “rights”. If you think people have a “right” not to be offended then you would be willing to tramp on the right to free speech. And so on.
Plus the only reason you have constitutional rights is that a majority adopted the Constitution to begin with. Rights are only meaningful within a system that recognizes them, and the systems that do that best tend to involve free elections.
“You don’t like a TV show? Change the channel.”
.
Which, appropriately enough, is what I do if I’m channel surfing and come across an episode of The View.
.
As for the 70% statistic, my feeling is that the vast majority of those people don’t live or work in or near New York, and thus it’s none of their dámņ business, legally speaking. Poll the American public, and they may be against the city regulation banning trans-fats from restaurant food as well. Doesn’t mean they get a say in the matter.
NO trans-fats? who measures this? no wonder NY is going belly up
If you invite Bill O’Reilly on your show, you know what you are in for. If you bring up political topics, you know what you are in for.
Being the host(s) of the show, and walking off your own set just tells me you lacked the research or the intelligence to fight off his argument, and just made you look terribly weak. I’m not taking sides or saying who has the correct argument. It just strikes me that the women of the View were terribly unprepared for what was coming their way, if that was the best they could do.
Joy Behar’s argument “show me the poll” in regards to the 70%, whether you agree with the reasoning behind the numbers or not, is the worst offense, as it comes up via a simple google search “ground zero mosque poll.”
I think it was a CNN poll, doesn’t Joy work there?
Being the host(s) of the show, and walking off your own set just tells me you lacked the research or the intelligence to fight off his argument,
.
Except, O’Reilly doesn’t play by these rules himself on his own show. He just cuts people off, rather than engage them in the intelligent manner that you ask of the hosts of The View. At other times, O’Reilly performs sleight of tongue to disguise his own lack of research or intelligence.
If I wanted, following zoning and safety laws, I could open a gun range/gun club beside the high school in Columbine.
My goal to reaffirm that not “all” gun owners are crazy wacked out criminals. We could learn about gun safety, hunting for food, gun laws etc.
I could do this, but I won’t cause I have common sense, decency and especially the fact that I am not an @$$ h0le.
A better analogy will be opening your gun range/gun club two blocks from the school not beside it. Also, instead of a gun range use a church or temple for whatever religion the Columbine shooters were. You are comparing a weapon (guns) with a religion . The weapons in 9/11 were jets. Would it be lack of commom sense and decency to open an aviation history museum two blocks from ground zero?
I love that analogy. The aviation museum is an EXCELLENT way to point out the misguided argument against the ‘mosque’. Nicely done and I will be using that one in future discussion of the topic. Perfect way of putting it.
No, you couldn’t open a gun range/gun club beside the high school in Columbine–or, my guess would be, any high school–because zoning and safety laws would not permit it, so your point is moot.
.
You could, however, probably open one several blocks away. Have fun.
.
PAD
There is such as thing as a “Muslim Supremicist Movement”.
This Mosque has the potential to symbolize such a beast.
There will be an “I Told ya so” moment.
There is such a thing as a person who either cannot or will not actually look at the facts.
.
Hi, Anthony.
That’s nice and vague. Care to specify approximately how long it’ll take for taht “Told Ya so” moment? Otherwise, of course you’re right. Because if it hasn’t happened YET, according to you, it’s still destined to happen. So draw a line.
Haven’t really heard of such a movement. I am familiar, however with the White Supremacist (note correct spelling) Movement. You know, the KKK, those guys. I understand they’re mostly Christian. So let’s protest the building of churches immediately, because I hear there’s a long history of folks who want to hurt and terrorize people in the name of this Jesus fellow. You remember Jesus. The one whose rule was that people should love each other and get along.
.
PAD
ahh the KKK, don’t hear a lot from them either, but your reference fits I guess. But always remember Jesus did get angry and kick some guys out of a temple.
So maybe there were times when getting along wasn’t the number one priority.
Not being naive, I’m sure that there are Muslims that daydream of Muslim Supremacy. But you got to be paranoid to think they have any chance of making any real headway in the US.
The nightmare of a Western society surrendering control to Muslims out of cowardice and political correctness is very unlikely even in Europe, where they have a much bigger Muslim population. In the US it just can’t happen.
.
The same way Unitarian churches can symbolize fundamentalist Christian supremacy in political debates.
.
In other word, no. Not to anyone with an IQ over room temperature or has read anything.
How about five years after it’s built, and there’s been no incidents, I come back and tell you “I told ya so”?
Willing to listen to your arguments Mike.
NBPerp:
Any thoughts on the Gun Club/Columbine argument?
Well, I’m not NBPerp, but here’s one further thought: I’m sure you, not being an áššhølë, would refrain from opening a gun club near Columbine, but even a non-áššhølë like you would think there’s no problem with opening one in, say, Wisconsin. Or Pennsylvania. Or California.
.
Except suddenly people show up in droves and accuse you of being a terrorist no matter where you go and try to block you wherever possible.
.
What would you call those people, I wonder? Oh right: Úšhølëš.
.
PAD
Mr David,
Here is where my naïve heart gets broken……..snicker if you will…..but of course they can open a mosque to join the THOUSAND of other mosques currently existing in the US. That are currently being built and are thriving etc. No one is saying that……it really is just a matter of sensitivity.
And yes I may have been a tad brash in my other comment but history shows and there is a pattern that a symbolic & triumphant mosque opening near defeated lands is not new.
“of course they can open a mosque to join the THOUSAND of other mosques currently existing in the US. That are currently being built and are thriving etc. No one is saying that”
.
Are you not paying attention to the debate you’re in?
.
That’s EXACTLY what people are saying.
.
70% of people are against a Mosque being built in their area, all across the country. It’s got nothing to do with New York. This has been mentioned several times in this thread, and was illustrated quite humorously in a recent bit on The Daily Show.
Kind of off-topic, sort of….not that any of you care about my feelings or others……but does it matter to those who call themselves Liberals, democrats….etc that they lose the independent centre or the slightly right of centre …due too ….bullish, politically correct behaviour?
John, there is a fear of Muslims,and the ability to not talk openly about for fear of a backlash (see the horrible controversy that has surrounded Elizabeth Moon) I think has escalated this.
I’ve complained about that any number of times. (Complaints that are typically overlooked by people who assert that I say nothing but nice things about Democrats and liberals.)
.
Liberals are among the most avid advocates of censorship there are. Colleges are havens of censorship. The biggest difference between typical liberal and conservative censorship is that conservatives say, “I want to censor this because it offends me,” while liberals say, “I want to censor this because, although I believe in free speech, I’m concerned it will offend someone else.”
.
PAD
“I want to censor this because, although I believe in free speech, I’m concerned it will offend someone else.”
Which usually means, “I’m offended by this emotionally, but intellectually I’m in favor of free speech, so I’ll invoke others to try and stay above the fray.”
Kinda like Bill O’Reilly talking about the 70% of people who don’t want the mosque.
Which usually means, “I’m offended by this emotionally, but intellectually I’m in favor of free speech, so I’ll invoke others to try and stay above the fray.”
.
More or less, yeah.
.
PAD
When I look at lists of banned books and the reasons why:
.
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned/index.cfm
.
They usually have more to do with the “it’s obscene” or “dangerous thoughts” argument than the “it’s offensive” argument. That’s the difference I usually see between different censorship attempts. (Although I love that someone tried to ban 1984 because they thought it was pro-communist. What do you have to be smoking for that?)
And yes I may have been a tad brash in my other comment but history shows and there is a pattern that a symbolic & triumphant mosque opening near defeated lands is not new.
.
A few fun facts: (1) There was already a mosque within a few blocks of Ground Zero. No one protested. (2) Park 51 was already being used as an overflow prayer space. No one protested. (3) The construction of the center would add a variety of community-oriented facilities. The prayer space is already there and, again, was drawing no protests…until certain bigots became involved. (4) Yes, there are over a thousand mosques in the United States. There are also over 68,000 churches. Not sure what your point is. (5) Whatever mosques may have been constructed before now, it is documented fact that further construction is currently being fought coast to coast. Furthermore there has been mosque/Koran desecration in such Ground Zero-proximate areas as Lansing, Michigan and Knoxville, Tennessee.
.
Again: This isn’t about sensitivity to people’s feelings. This is about religious persecution.
.
PAD
I don’t think we have to worry about AnthonyX ever having the gumption or money to open a Gun Shop, maybe work at one.
I see more and more arguments, appeals, e-mails indicating the majority favors “X” therefore why should we care about the minority viewpoint just because they are vocal? I thought the whole point about several features of our government’s operating procedures were to PREVENT the majority from fully controlling or taking stuff away from minorities. Did I miss a meeting somewhere?
Mr. David,
I’m quoting from memory but I do know that opinions regarding inter-racial marriage have shifted. IIRC, the point that a national poll showed 50%+ approval of inter-racial marriage was very close to original publication date of the “Current Event” BID article that was recently posted on this website: 1994. Even though I consider it a good thing that an in-favor majority opinion was reached, I find it very depressing as to how long it took it to happen.
For what it’s worth, here’s part of the summary of a Gallup poll:
.
Gallup’s long-term trend on this question documents a sea change in public attitudes about interracial marriage. In 1958, only 4% of Americans said they approved of marriages between whites and blacks. (The precise wording of the Gallup question has changed across the decades as the commonly accepted descriptive terms for blacks have changed; when Gallup first asked the question in 1958, the poll wording was, “whites and non-whites.”) Approval gradually increased over the next few decades, but at least half of Americans disapproved of black-white unions through 1983. Then, in the next measure eight years later, disapproval had fallen to 42%, with 48% approving. In 1997, the next time Gallup asked the question, approval had jumped well into the majority, with nearly two in three Americans saying they approved of marriages between blacks and whites. Disapproval fell to 27% in that same year. Support remained at about the two-thirds level until 2002, but increased to 73% in 2003. Since then, there have only been modest variations in attitudes about interracial marriages.
Seventy-five percent of whites approve of marriages between blacks and whites, and 19% disapprove. The trends in whites’ approval of interracial marriages closely mirror that of the general population. Few whites approved of interracial marriage in 1958, but support gradually increased, reaching majority level in 1997 and then edging up to the current 75% approval rating, the highest point to date, though by a statistically insignificant two points compared with Gallup’s 2004 survey.
.
It goes on to say that 85% of blacks also have no problem with it.
.
PAD
Again: This isn’t about sensitivity to people’s feelings. This is about religious persecution.
.
PAD
********
Agree to disagree, love your work.
Thank you. I’m glad you like my work.
.
One more fun fact to consider: Studies have shown that when people possess opinions that are not based on fact, but rather emotion…that when they are then presented with absolutely irrefutable facts to the contrary…rather than revise their opinion, they will instead dig in their heels and cling with even greater ferocity to the original opinions.
.
Just something to think about.
.
PAD
You know, you’re right. This is about religious persecution.
.
You would deny a group of people to build something related to their religious faith, even though it is in accord with all appropriate zoning laws, merely because you disagree with their faith and hold the faith as a whole responsible for a horribly reprehensible act committed by a small number of people almost a decade ago. Sounds like religious persecution to me…
Errata: Paragraph 2 should begin, “You would deny a group of people the right to build…”
You might be the wrong person to determine that. If the object of your attention says its religious persecution, if a lot of people around you says its religious persecution….you may want to sit down and think about your position.
Peter, there’s a group right here near Nashville that’s been trying to build an Islamic center, and has met with opposition from the first, up to and including someone setting fire to construction equipment that didn’t even belong to the center, but to the contractor hired to do the work. And it’s a hëll of a long way from anything else. But… if somebody elected to use that land for a great honking Six Flag Over Jesus church, not one person in Williamson County would say a word. In defense of some folks’ good sense, though, there was a literal Six Flags Over Jesus religious theme park that got shot down by the neighbors of the place just a few years back. People aren’t completely stupid all the time… just a lot of the time.
Duplicate post, this one can go away.
Peter, there’s a group right here near Nashville that’s been trying to build an Islamic center, and has met with opposition from the first, up to and including someone setting fire to construction equipment that didn’t even belong to the center, but to the contractor hired to do the work. And it’s a hëll of a long way from anything else. But… if somebody elected to use that land for a great honking Six Flags Over Jesus church, not one person in Williamson County would say a word. In defense of some folks’ good sense, though, there was a literal Six Flags Over Jesus religious theme park that got shot down by the neighbors of the place just a few years back. People aren’t completely stupid all the time… just a lot of the time.
My mistake, it’s Rutherford County, but the story is still the same; the Islamophobes want to shut the place down, fearing that there’s gonna be a terrorist training camp in the area, which is as stupid as you can get.
What was that line Martin Sheen had in an episode of The West Wing?
Something like “Two politicians are arguing and one says to the other “You’re lying!” and the second politician says “Yes I am…but hear me out!”
That’s what people like Bill O’Reilly remind me of.
Hey man, how do you know Elvis ISN’T alive? Like K said, “No. Elvis is not dead. He just went home.”
What you DON’T do is try to launch a punitive retaliatory strike through commercial means (i.e., boycotts)
Peter, you’ve said this before, recently in regards to the video game you worked on (which was the target of a boycott by some websites), but I don’t buy your argument that a boycott is necessarily wrong.
First, you say that it’s okay to “Change the channel,” but a boycott is wrong? That’s an inconsistent argument. A boycott is an attempt to deprive someone of money. Changing the channel in our commercial television environment deprives, in the case of Bill O’Reilly and The O’Reilly Factor as an example, FOX of money; lower ratings mean lower ad revenue. Both are punitive actions and deprive the speaker of money, if not immediately then eventually. If a boycott is wrong because it’s punitive, then by your logic changing the channel is likewise wrong because it is also punitive.
Second, rebutting someone isn’t always practical because people aren’t on the same level and don’t have the same reach. Bill O’Reilly has a platform that reaches millions. Orson Scott Card is read by hundreds of thousands. You have a blog that reaches thousands. I have a blog that reaches hundreds. A blog post that I write that rebuts racism, fascism, or homophobia that Card spewed in a newspaper column widely read would be seen by a few hundred people at best, and there’s no guarantee that Card would see it or, if he did see, even consider its arguments. A boycott, by not buying Card’s novels or comic book work, sends Card a message in a way that cannot be missed in a way that my platform — my blog — would be.
Third, a boycott doesn’t deprive Card of his right to speak. He can have whatever narrow-minded opinions he wants, and he can express them however he sees fit. But his opinions don’t shield him from financial consequences due to his speech. The Dixie Chicks had every right to express their feelings on George Bush; country music radio had every right not to give them airtime (which promoted their work and could lead to sales) because of that.
Finally, money is speech. The Supreme Court said so in the Citizens United decision. Depriving someone of money through a boycott is also speech.
But a boycott is not mature speech. It’s speech that makes a person a surly teenager, someone, who throw a tantrum rather than engage in meaningful discourse.
I don’t have a problem with people individually deciding not to invest there money on a product or service. But when a person is calling for an organized forbearance just because they small-mindedly disagree with something, then they are showing how small-minded they are
Maybe.
.
I used to like Orson Scott Card’s books. That was before the Internet, and before I discovered a few of his oppinions, such as the charming notion that gays should be sent to prison.
.
I usually may disagree strongly with a person’s oppinions and still enjoy their work, but Card is the only exception I’ve ever made.
.
I saw the 3rd book of the Ender series some day in the bookstore, and I was torn, because I loved that series, but the thought of contributing in any way to Card’s career filled me with revulsion.
.
I would not go so far as to organize a boycott, but I feel a need to tell anyone I know that may consider reading one of his books or comics what sort of person he is.
I would not go so far as to organize a boycott, but I feel a need to tell anyone I know that may consider reading one of his books or comics what sort of person he is.
.
Why? Because you think he’s going to be writing material in “Ender’s Game” that’s going to be offensive to gays? No? Then it’s no concern of the potential reader.
.
How far do you feel the need to take this? Are you going to check the political affiliation of every head of every restaurant chain before you spend money at one of their establishments? Are you going to set up shop outside Cooperstown and caution anyone who’s thinking of going in that Ty Cobb was a bigot and therefore they shouldn’t give the Hall of Fame any money?
.
No, of course not. Because that’s a lot of work. But if someone happens to say something on line or in a separate essay that you find offensive, then you’re going to sound the alarm.
.
Which means you want to punish people for saying things that you find offensive.
.
So basically you’re okay with supporting people…as long as they don’t say things you find offensive. You support them as long as they keep their big mouths shut. “Zip your lip and I’m your fan. Avail yourself of free speech in a way I disagree with and I’m gone, and will also tell other people that you’re not a nice guy.”
.
You see why I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this type of thinking?
.
If you loved “Ender’s Game,” then there’s no reason whatsoever to be torn. You buy the book. It’s not about punishing Card. It’s about separating the person from the work, which people should always do, because the chances are that everyone you enjoy is going to have SOME opinion that you disagree with. The work is all that matters.
.
PAD
I hesitated before posting this, because I know it’s an issue PAD’s addressed before, and the discussion is already off topic, but… well, if it’s off a little, it might as well be off a lot, right?
Anyway, my issue is with the idea that work should be considered independently of the author isn’t so much the idea itself as the questions that come with it (or at least, follow behind it and tug at its purse strings):
If we consider the work apart from the author, does that mean we should consider it apart from the rest of its contemporary context as well? If so, aren’t we back to the “art for art’s sake” school of thinking? And if not, where do we draw the line?
I can see the argument that–to expand on this example–Card’s stance on homosexuality shouldn’t affect a reading of Ender’s Game, because there is no (overt) reference to it, but can it honestly be said that knowing Card’s a Moromon doesn’t affect a reading of his Alvin Maker series, when Alvin is modeled on John Smith, or his Homecoming series where characters actually find instructions on gold sheets that were buried underground?
I’m not arguing that anyone should reject Card’s books based on his personal beliefs (at least, personal beliefs he doesn’t express in the books), but I don’t think the books can or should be read as entirely separate entities.
PAD –
In my head, I know you’re right. In my heart, I just can’t do it. This is one case where my emotions get the better of me.
.
It’s no excuse, but Card is the only anti-gay bigot that is so extreme in his articles that it gets to me. I still read and enjoy many other writers that have said or implied things that I strong disagree with. I like Dan Simmons, I like Chuck Dixon, I like Bill Willimgham, I like John Byrne, I sometimes like Frank Miller. I think I could even read Dave Sym.
.
But I think I draw the line on someone that wants to send gays to prison. I’ve tried to buy Card’s books after I knew, but I just couldn’t.
If we consider the work apart from the author, does that mean we should consider it apart from the rest of its contemporary context as well? If so, aren’t we back to the “art for art’s sake” school of thinking? And if not, where do we draw the line?
.
I can see the argument that–to expand on this example–Card’s stance on homosexuality shouldn’t affect a reading of Ender’s Game, because there is no (overt) reference to it, but can it honestly be said that knowing Card’s a Moromon doesn’t affect a reading of his Alvin Maker series, when Alvin is modeled on John Smith, or his Homecoming series where characters actually find instructions on gold sheets that were buried underground?
.
Now you’re talking about something different: Literary criticism. Taking into consideration the time frame during which a work was produced or aspects of the character’s personality that might have informed the thinking that went into the work. That’s always a stimulating exercise, to read subtext–whether intended or not–into the work.
.
It can even make a work all the more remarkable. Since you sign yourself as a PoC, I’ll give you a for instance: in the original “Tarzan of the Apes,” African natives are portrayed pretty uniformly as savages for whom Tarzan has nothing but contempt. Granted, it’s instilled because one of them killed Kala, the she-ape who raised him, but consequently and across the board, Tarzan hates people with dark skin. Few people at the time ERB wrote it would have had a problem with that: They hated people because of their skin color with far less incentive than that one of their race killed a loved one.
.
Yet in a subsequent volume, a black warrior aids Tarzan, saving his life from an enraged lion, and Tarzan winds up befriending them. Now: Many modern fans loath this concept, and on some level, who can blame them? Here is the great white mighty Bwana hunter whom all the blacks adore, if not outright worship. Again, sounds very much of the time. But on the other hand, when Tarzan is brought to the village and feted (since he saved the warrior’s life in turn), Tarzan remembers how previously he would have killed any or all of these people without thought, simply based upon the color of their skin. “Tarzan was ashamed,” wrote Burroughs, and thereafter swore never to judge a man based on his skin color. So: Are the ERB stories racist tracts of white superiority? Or is the notion of a hero abashed at his own bias forward thinking for its time and an early plea for racial sensitivity?
.
Either way, I don’t think much is gained by boycotting the books. But you tell me: Where DO we draw the line?
.
PAD
But I think I draw the line on someone that wants to send gays to prison. I’ve tried to buy Card’s books after I knew, but I just couldn’t.
.
Understand, Rene, that I’m not defending him; I think Card’s philosophies are off the rails. But since you’ve brought it up twice, I feel the need to give it context: Card never said that gays should be sent to prison. In fact, he explicitly stated that they should NOT be. What he said is that anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books should be enforced in order to discourage gay behavior, or the accepting of it. Which of course is the polar opposite of my view, which is that any such laws should be changed, and I’m pretty sure eventually will be.
.
But I should therefore point out that your position could easily be rephrased to make you look…well, odd. Consider this: if you’re in a bookstore and say to someone, “You shouldn’t buy that book because the guy who wrote it said something terrible.” “Really? What did he say?” “He said that laws should be enforced. Can you believe it?!” At which point the customer will back away from you slowly, clutching the copy of “Ender’s Game” they’re going to buy.
.
Just something to consider.
.
PAD
I understand, PAD. I don’t think you’re defending Card’s views.
.
I’m not one of those PC guys that go out looking for things to be offended by. Life is too short for that kind of nonsense.
.
If I didn’t know of Card’s opinnions in his articles, I wouldn’t even be offended by Card’s story with a supposedly gay male character finding happiness by marrying a woman. Those things sometimes happen in real life (real life is politically incorrect). Something like that has even happened to me; I’ve been involved with men, I’ve been involved with women too.
.
But, in Card’s case, I’ve lost my capacity to separate him from his fiction. I do think the only other person I’d include in that category is Mel Gibson. I don’t like the fact that I’m denying myself some books and movies I could have liked. But I can’t help myself. I go into rant mode whenever I think of Card or Gibson.
But, in Card’s case, I’ve lost my capacity to separate him from his fiction. I do think the only other person I’d include in that category is Mel Gibson. I don’t like the fact that I’m denying myself some books and movies I could have liked. But I can’t help myself. I go into rant mode whenever I think of Card or Gibson.
.
If it’s of any use to you, Rene, I got a mass mailing not too long ago from a relative who was trying to rally everyone she knew to boycott any and all future films starring Mel Gibson. That we owed it to our fellow Jews in order to fight anti-Semitism. And my response was, basically, “Forget it.” Why should I care if Mel Gibson doesn’t like Jews? Supposedly neither did Walt Disney. It doesn’t mean that if they (or studios associated with them) turn out work I find compelling and worth supporting, I’m not going to do so. People are entitled to their individual views, and as long as it doesn’t filter into their work, then I absolutely don’t care. Because the moment I start judging the work (and my support thereof) based upon outside factors, that sets me on a slippery slope. Then I have to start choosing what I feel strongly enough about to support, at which point I have to start asking uncomfortable questions. “No, I will not support this person because he said something anti-gay in a separate essay.” Okay, but do I support his publishers? The stores that sell his work? People who have worked with him? What about people who say things about race relations that I don’t like? Nope, draw the line there, too. Okay, and what if he said that all women are idiots? What if it’s a woman who said all men are idiots? What if he or she says something that I secretly agree with, but all my friends say angers them and they ask for my support? Do I stand behind them? Am I betraying them if I don’t?
.
I’d rather just embrace the work or not embrace it based upon the quality of the work.
.
PAD
If I were to refuse to read a book because I disagree with the author on some issue or another, there probably wouldn’t be anything I could read.
.
“If a boycott is wrong because it’s punitive, then by your logic changing the channel is likewise wrong because it is also punitive.”
.
O.o
.
Uhmmmmm… No. Big NO in bold face and all caps.
.
If I choose to change the channel because, say, Glenn Beck comes on and I find Beck to be batshit crazy, deliberately misleading and manipulative, occasionally offense and feel that one hour of his TV or radio shows may kill more of my brain cells than all the drinking I ever did in my younger days then I have made a decision for me and me alone. It’s not a punitive action, it’s simply my choice.
.
Now, if I choose to organize a boycott of Beck I am not making a simple choice for me and me alone. What I am doing is choosing to not watch his show and trying to get other people to not watch and trying to intimidate his advertisers and the channels that carry him by making them believe that I and my merry little band are going to become a mass movement that will hurt them financially.
.
If I simply choose to change the channel then all I’m doing is not listening to or watching Beck’s product. If I choose to start a boycott and try to pressure others into not watching or pressure advertisers to drop him until he’s no longer financially viable for his stations to carry him then I am trying to make my personal decision the decision of everyone else out there.
.
To equate simply not being a listener, viewer or buyer of someone’s product with starting a boycott shows a gross lack of understanding as to what a boycott is and what it actually does. You may as well be comparing giving someone a playful slap upside the head with swinging a sledgehammer at their skull with all your strength.
.
Hey, you’re hitting them either way after all.
Jerry, changing the channel is a punitive action, for precisely the reason that I laid out — and that Peter, wonderfully, chose to ignore in his response to me. 🙂
Changing the channel deprives a commercial program of money. Ad rates are determined by ratings. Lower ratings for a program mean lower ad rates. Lower ad rates means the network, like FOX or ABC, doesn’t receive as much money from sponsors to support the program. Or, if the program doesn’t achieve the rating promised by the network, the network may have to refund money to the advertisers.
&nbps;
Changing the channel does have a negative financial effect on the network.
If you’ve made the conscious choice, “I don’t like Bill O’Reilly’s hate speech, I’m not going to watch his show,” you’ve made a punitive financial decision that is no different than a boycott on his books as both have adverse financial consequences for O’Reilly.
That’s the fundamental incoherence of Peter’s position, and that’s what I have a problem with.
.
“If you’ve made the conscious choice, “I don’t like Bill O’Reilly’s hate speech, I’m not going to watch his show,” you’ve made a punitive financial decision that is no different than a boycott on his books as both have adverse financial consequences for O’Reilly.
.
That’s the fundamental incoherence of Peter’s position, and that’s what I have a problem with.”
.
Allyn, you’re stretching the concepts you’re discussing razor thin in order to twist the one and make them both seem like the same thing.
.
Changing the channel is not a punitive action and the motivation behind it is certainly not a punitive one. Choosing not to watch a program is a choice you make for yourself and yourself alone. If you don’t want to watch something but enough other people do then you’re not watching a program means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things. It’s not the same thing as a boycott and only someone truly ignorant of the concepts we’re discussing would insist that it is.
.
I’ll use Beck and his show as an example again since what’s really been happening with his TV show is a perfect example of the difference between not watching and boycotting.
.
Beck’s Fox News TV show is one of Fox News Channel’s biggest ratings hits. I don’t watch it. For that matter it’s safe to say that a vast majority of the people out there don’t watch it. He averages a little over 2,000,000 viewers in a country where the population is around 300,000,000 people. Statistically speaking his viewers represent less than 1% of the population and would get his show canceled on the networks, but in the cable news game those are big ratings. You or I not watching his show means nothing to Fox News or his advertisers because he still has enough viewers to be alternately the second or third highest show in cable news and a higher rated program than most of the cable programs out there.
.
I don’t watch. You don’t watch. It means nothing to Beck, Fox news or his advertisers. Beck is a huge success. You and I choosing not to watch means nothing and is not a punitive action.
.
Now, Beck’s Fox News TV show has been and still is the target of a boycott. People that don’t like what he has to say (and who are not viewers of his show to begin with) have written the companies that advertised on his show and informed them that they will not purchase the products of any company that advertises with Beck. The companies, in fear for their bottom line, pulled their advertising on his show and informed Fox News that they didn’t want their products advertised on other shows (Bill O’Reilly, Fox and Friends) any time Beck is a guest on those shows.
.
The results of this boycott is that Beck’s show is what’s known in the industry as “empty calories.” It’s a show with huge ratings but that’s unable to make the station airing it any real money. Right now Beck still has a few sponsors because he has taken sponsorship from fringe kook products that most of the other shows won’t touch, but his show, despite being a ratings winner for Fox News and beating the cable news competition in it’s timeslot, is perilously close to be a big money loser for Fox News Channel. If the boycott of the program continues long enough and the scales tip just a little more in favor of Beck’s boycotters then he might very well end up without a Fox News TV show despite being their 2nd or 3rd highest rated show on the network and one of the highest rated shows in cable news.
.
That’s the difference.
.
If you or I choose not to watch him then all we do is not watch him. That’s not a punitive action in the least. If someone chooses to boycott his show they are imposing their desire to not watch him on others by, if successful with their boycott, driving him off the air despite his high ratings and viewer numbers. That’s a punitive action and the results of such action.
.
The two concepts are not the same. They’re not even close to the same.
Jerry, changing the channel is a punitive action, for precisely the reason that I laid out — and that Peter, wonderfully, chose to ignore in his response to me. 🙂
.
Uh…no. I spent an entire post addressing it. Several, in fact. Apparently I need to do so again. I’ll try to rephrase it since the previous times don’t quite seem to have done the job.
.
I have no problem with someone refusing to watch or support a work because they find THE WORK offensive. Which justifies turning away from Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly. Their shows ARE the work.
.
Where I take issue is deciding you’re going to boycott a work, even though there is NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN IT, because the writer said something IN A DIFFERENT VENUE that you take issue with. Show me rabid anti-gay leanings in “Ender’s Game” and I’m on board, because that’s analogous to what you’re saying. Failing that…then it isn’t.
.
PAD
Again, Peter, thank you for your viewpoint.
No problem, Allyn. Thank you for considering it. And even better: Thank you for not boycotting me for expressing it!
.
PAD
First, you say that it’s okay to “Change the channel,” but a boycott is wrong? That’s an inconsistent argument.
.
No, it’s not. You change the channel if you find the speech offensive. That’s fine. But turning around and informing the sponsors that you are going to organize as many people as possible to stop buying their product until they cease sponsoring the speaker is wrong. Or there’s an author whose work you have admired and enjoyed. But then that author, in a totally separate essay on his or her blog, says something you find offensive. Say to me, “I’m going to stop reading the author’s blog,” and I’m with you. Say to me, “I’m going to stop reading all the author’s fiction, even though his or her opinions are not discernible in the fiction,” and you lose me.
.
Second, rebutting someone isn’t always practical because people aren’t on the same level and don’t have the same reach.
.
And the reason they’ve reached that level is because they’ve worked hard to achieve it. And if you busted your ášš over many years, you might also reach a level of influence. But that’s a lot of work. Instead you’re embracing the quick and easy path that requires zero work or investment of time and energy.
.
A boycott, by not buying Card’s novels or comic book work, sends Card a message in a way that cannot be missed in a way that my platform — my blog — would be.
.
No, it really doesn’t. Lots of people’s sales are dropping for lots of reasons, mostly related to the economy. There is absolutely no reason for Card to assume that a sales drop-off is related to his opinions. None. Post persuasive blog entries, find an email address for him, send him letters. You want to send him a message, call Western Union. That will get your message to him in a far more effective and straightforward way than some sort of byzantine economic sanction. Boycotts aren’t about sending messages. They’re about trying to punish someone because they said something you didn’t like, and proving that you can be just as intolerant as the person you despise. Furthermore, what about the book store owner? The book publisher? The people who might well have the exact same opinions you do when it comes to gay rights. Let’s, for the sake of argument, claim your boycott is effective. Congratulations: You’ve managed to hurt people who have said and done absolutely nothing that warrants being punished.
.
But his opinions don’t shield him from financial consequences due to his speech.
.
No, but those who embrace the notion of a free exchange of ideas and defending someone’s right to an unpopular opinion should be doing that for him.
.
The Dixie Chicks had every right to express their feelings on George Bush; country music radio had every right not to give them airtime (which promoted their work and could lead to sales) because of that.
.
Except the argument is that the Chicks voiced their opinions during a concert, so it could be argued that they linked it inextricably with their performance. It would be the equivalent of Card basing his books on anti-gay sentiments…which he didn’t do.
.
Finally, money is speech. The Supreme Court said so in the Citizens United decision. Depriving someone of money through a boycott is also speech.
.
No, they said money is protected speech, meaning the government couldn’t infringe on it. No one is disputing your right not to spend money on Card’s books. Just on whether it’s an appropriate response in a free society.
.
PAD
It would be the equivalent of Card basing his books on anti-gay sentiments…which he didn’t do.
My memory may be faulty here, especially since I didn’t particularly like Empire, but I thought it did include anti-gay sentiments…
I don’t recall any in his other books that I’ve read (just the Ender/Bean books, including the post-Empire Ender in Exile), though.
In two of Card’s books I’ve read there were two very minor gay characters. Both characters are portrayed in positive terms, but they are portrayed as ‘doing the right thing’ by marrying women and having children despite being gay.
This did not ruin the books for me, or my enjoyment with Ender’s Game. But if I recommended these books to anybody, especially someone I know will be offended by these depictions, I probably would warn them that they are there.
Moreover, I would not hold it against someone who decided not to read Card’s books because of his opinions on gays, if they felt that their enjoyment of his work is diminished by their knowledge of his opinions. It’s subjective. All I can tell them is that they might find some of his books enjoyable for despite Card’s opinions and/or reflections of said opinions in the book.
I would also understand someone personally not wanting to buy a book by someone whose opinions they find objectionable, because they personally don’t want to contribute to his success. Again, it’s a personal subjective decision depending on the effect said opinions have on the person involved. It is not much different than changing the channel.
However, it seems to me, as a matter of personal opinion, that people should not deprive themselves from reading books by people with different political opinions unless they feel very strongly about it.
I would also understand someone personally not wanting to buy a book by someone whose opinions they find objectionable, because they personally don’t want to contribute to his success.
.
Oh, I understand it, in that I get that it gives them some sort of sense of gratification, to feel that they got back at someone because they don’t like his opinions. That they’ve “done something” about it. I just find doing nothing to be an odd definition of doing something. And speaking as someone who supports the work of John Byrne, who has attacked me personally, publicly and repeatedly, I find it an unfortunate and limiting attitude.
.
PAD
Not buying a book certainly constitutes doing nothing. But buying a book is doing something. If the creator in question has repugnant enough opinions, a person might prefer to do nothing than to do something that benefits said creator.
Personally, I’m of two minds on the matter.
.
PAD, I can certainly understand your point of view…that, with so many other factors, one less sale doesn’t necessarily send a specific message.
.
On the other hand, I’m in a position where I decided years ago to never purchase a comic that would knowingly put a single penny in Rob Liefeld’s pocket. I find his professional practices to be reprehensible, from the lack of talent to the entrenched plagiarism in his work. As a result, I’ve skipped issues of series that I otherwise enjoy because of his involvement. For example, a Christmas issue of Superman some years ago, in which he contributed 2-3 pages of art, or the two issues of Teen Titans that he did a few years ago (the first two issues of a Titans series I’ve missed since June of 1980).
.
I think that, as more information is more widely available, and in a form that – in truth or just perception – allows for a more direct interaction with the person behind the work, it can become more difficult for some to make that separation of the person from the work. I know that, in some cases, it’s more difficult for me to do.
.
I make no illusions that it’s rational…it’s a pure gut reaction.
.
–Daryl
Thank you for your viewpoint, Peter.
I understand what you are saying, and I recognize the difference between boycotting something because of a personal stance against a person or company, or not buying something because you don’t like it.
.
And, I understand the viewpoint that it should be the product and its own merits that determines whether or not you purchase it. Its support of a certain show, or being produced by someone with opposing moral views, in your opinion, shouldn’t enter into it.
.
For me, however, it does. In a capitalistic society, like America sometimes tries to be, there are all sorts of reasons to buy or not buy something.
.
For some people, it is worth the extra expense to buy American produced products. Some go more specific and will spend more to buy locally produced goods (especially food.)
.
I will drive past a Wal-Mart and spend more because I disagree with their corporate policies. This is me, as a consumer. All other things being equal, I will buy fast food from McDonald’s, because I agree with certain stances that company takes.
.
Where I think we agree, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that I don’t agree with the simple cry of, “Boycott this product / person / company.” I do, however, split the hair to say that I agree with the claim, “Company X does this thing I don’t like, and that is why I don’t shop there.”
.
It is a very fine line, I know. But, I do feel that for capitalism to really work, the dollars should count for more than price-point and product quality.
.
Another point that was brought up (not by you, but in the thread) was the boycott of sponsors of Glenn Beck’s tv appearances. I have to say that while I’m not participating in the boycott (because knowing what companies sponsor him would require watching him, and there are too few hours in the day to subject myself to that) I do agree with the philosophy.
.
Companies advertize their products during shows for a reason. One, obvious one, is to get their name out. To inform the public of the existance of their product, its merrits, etc. This is why they go for highly rated shows. It reaches more people.
.
I would be shocked to learn of someone who watches American TV and doesn’t already know of Campbell’s soup, Ford trucks, Wendy’s bacon, or Pepsi cola. But, these people still advertize. Do they think we forgot them? No, there is a second reason that companies pick the shows that advertize their products.
.
This reason is for association. Advertizers expect that you are watching a show you enjoy. So, putting thier product on screen at that moment carries over that enjoyment from the show to the product. Therefore, you may be more agreeable to buy their product than someone else’s.
.
So, I think it is entirely fair that if the commercials are playing on something you strongly disagree with, to carry that disagreement into your decision as to whether or not to buy their product.
.
Again, that is just me. And, I’ve participated in very few such boycotts in my life. Two, actually. And, both were petty (but, then, at the heart of it, aren’t all boycotts petty?) I prefer the anti-boycott, where you buy their product because you agree with them rather than not buy their product because you disagree with them.
.
Theno
Would there be no circumstance under which you’d consider a boycott acceptable? I’m remembering back in college when some people were trying to organize such boycotts of certain foods ostensibly in support of migrant pickers who were [according to the organizers] being treated dismally. If the facts did support these allegation, would not a boycott of certain fruits until the pickers received fair treatment be justified?
.
On a lighter note, I still have a framegrab I did of a video I took during one of my stays in japan. It shows the name of a clothing store chain there: Boycott. Can you say “unclear on the concept”?
I’m remembering back in college when some people were trying to organize such boycotts of certain foods ostensibly in support of migrant pickers who were [according to the organizers] being treated dismally. If the facts did support these allegation, would not a boycott of certain fruits until the pickers received fair treatment be justified?
.
Okay: I’m over here saying, “As a First Amendment absolutist, I think it’s unworthy of a society that values free speech to take punitive action against an artist who voices an opinion that they don’t like, particularly when that opinion is not reflected in the work.”
.
And you’re way over on the other side saying, “A corporation is engaging in a pernicious commercial practice in order to produce their product, and I want to find a way to make them stop so that their workers won’t suffer.”
I’m putting it that way because I want to avoid the “apples and oranges” cliche.
.
PAD
The Starwolf sez: “Would there be no circumstance under which you’d consider a boycott acceptable? I’m remembering back in college when some people were trying to organize such boycotts of certain foods ostensibly in support of migrant pickers who were [according to the organizers] being treated dismally. If the facts did support these allegation, would not a boycott of certain fruits until the pickers received fair treatment be justified?”
In that case, and based what I said earlier, that would be acceptable because it’s not childish to send an organized message to the migrant workers’ employers through a boycott, because objectively speaking such mistreatment is an outrage
As a relevant aside, it’s easy to sway people’s answers to a survey based on how the question is formed. “Do Muslims have the right to build a place of worship in America?” is a much less emotionally loaded question than “Should Muslims build their Mosque where thousands of Americans died on 9/11?” The former couches it in legal terms (and a lot of those who oppose the Ground Zero center also acknowledge the right for it to be built), while the latter has a more emotional element and seems to equate building the Mosque (which, in this current atmosphere, is more loaded than “place of worship”) with desecrating the 9/11 victims. When we hear that 70% of people oppose it, we don’t know exactly what they oppose.
The problem with that second question, however, is that a number of those who died in the WTC on 9/11 were (wait for it) MUSLIMS. By couching the question in the rather bland “thousands of Americans” way simply ignores the fact that those “thousands” were a very diverse group that also just happened to include a fair number of NON-Americans.
I assume you did not mean to say Muslims are non-Americans.
I think I was more offended by his comment “Muslims attacked us on 9/11” than anything else.
It’s a valid observation. Muslims didn’t attack us on 9/11. Murderers attacked us on 9/11. They happened to be Muslim. When the KKK burns crosses on the front lawns of black families, when was the last time you heard someone say, “Christians burned crosses?”
.
PAD
I agree and that’s what Joy and Whoopi were trying to get across to him.. and he kept on lumping all muslims together as the 9/11 attackers.
This comepletely uninportant brouhahha between Bill O’reilly and the bickering View hens is getting more play than the report that Obama is skipping going to a Sikh temple in the second most populous country on the planet–a major ally–out of fear that the requirement he wear a headscarf will make him appear Muslim or something.
.
This had better not be true. (the report is at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/is-obama-skipping-temple-over-headgear.html) There are several things I don’t like about how Obama has performed but if there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s that pure craven cowardice has no place in the oval office.
.
I will assume that he will, in fact, visit the temple, either because it was always his plan to do so or because this story makes it essential that he do so.
While I likewise feel that Obama should do what he feels is right than expedient, is there any question in your mind, Bill, that any pictures of Obama wearing headgear will NOT be bandied around as proof that he’s a Muslim?
.
PAD
If he doesn’t visit the temple, people can easily claim that he didn’t go because his Islamic faith wouldn’t allow it.
If a politician refuses to do something because of how his enemies might spin it, then he’ll never be able to do anything.
If a politician refuses to do something because of how his enemies might spin it, then he’ll never be able to do anything.
.
That’s not the question, Mary. Furthermore, not doing something doesn’t provide photographic opportunities. There is a very limited amount of negative spin that can be put on Obama not going there and not wearing headgear that plays to the one idiot in four who thinks he’s a secret Muslim.
.
My question, which I’ll pose again is: Is there any doubt that his enemies will circulate pictures of him wearing a head kerchief as “proof” that he’s a Muslim?
.
PAD
<i.is there any question in your mind, Bill, that any pictures of Obama wearing headgear will NOT be bandied around as proof that he’s a Muslim?</i.
.
Not a bit. I don't think there is anything Obama could do that would not result in SOME gøddámņëdbødÿ trying to spin it as proof that he is a Communist Kenyan Muslim etc, etc.
.
Similarly, if he skips the temple, it will be claimed that it is evidence that he is awfully sensitive about the muslim thing, like guilty sensitive or something.
.
So he can offend an ally and have people think he’s a coward and acting like someone who is guilty…which is actually an opinion that is semi-defensible–or he can go to the temple and have some nitwits use photos of him in a modified baseball cap at a Sikh temple as evidence that he’s a Muslim. An entirely stupid and demonstrably wrong opinion. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
.
Furthermore, anyone who does not already buy into the Obama=Muslim lunacy is u
I think you’re right– there is no doubt that they will. But it’s a ‘so what?’ issue, I think. It’s only likely to be convincing to those who already believe it.
.
“Furthermore, anyone who does not already buy into the Obama=Muslim lunacy is u”
.
My God! That got Bill mid-sentence!
.
Uhm… “They” got Bill mid-sentence…
<i.is there any question in your mind, Bill, that any pictures of Obama wearing headgear will NOT be bandied around as proof that he’s a Muslim?</i.
.
Not a bit. I don't think there is anything Obama could do that would not result in SOME gøddámņëdbødÿ trying to spin it as proof that he is a Communist Kenyan Muslim etc, etc.
.
Similarly, if he skips the temple, it will be claimed that it is evidence that he is awfully sensitive about the muslim thing, like guilty sensitive or something.
.
So he can offend an ally and have people think he’s a coward and acting like someone who is guilty…which is actually an opinion that is semi-defensible–or he can go to the temple and have some nitwits use photos of him in a modified baseball cap at a Sikh temple as evidence that he’s a Muslim. An entirely stupid and demonstrably wrong opinion. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
.
Furthermore, anyone who does not already buy into the Obama=Muslim lunacy is unlikely to be swayed by the sight of him with Sikhs (who are about as Muslim as the cast of Yentl).
Wow, that was like the ending of a Lovecraft story.
.
I have no idea how that happened, btw.
Similarly, if he skips the temple, it will be claimed that it is evidence that he is awfully sensitive about the muslim thing, like guilty sensitive or something.
.
True, but as I said to Mary, insinuations of guilty sensitive don’t come with art. Pictures of Obama dressed in a manner evoking Muslims is a gift to these people.
.
PAD
Again though, the numebr of those remaining to be converted to the “Obama is a Muslim” camp is probably ow and unlikely to grow much by him going to a Sikh temple. The number of people who may yet be convinced that “Obama is a gutless wonder” is something he should be far more worried about.
.
The LA Times released a poll showing that
.
A- his approval rating has gone down every single quarter since inauguration
.
B- more Americans view Obama unfavorably than favorably
.
C- 54% believe he does not deserve a second term. Only 39% do.
.
In contrast “At this point in the second year of George W. Bush’s presidency, 62% thought he deserved a second term after only 48% voted for him in 2000.”
.
Does this sound like a man who needs to cower from his enemies? Remember the guy who looked bold and inspiring? Now he hides from bloggers and Fox news hosts.
.
ASSUMING that the story is true, mind you. We are talking the New York times. And he can still make lemonade out of this by just going to the temple and acting bold. I may or may not vote for him again but in the 2 years until that election i want my president to have the courage that the job requires. We aren’t the only ones watching.
This reminds me–remember the kerfuffle about a woman with a headscarf being denied a spot behind him at a campaign rally?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhpjpOj_QM
.
After a while, these things look like a pattern
As regards to changing the channel: Unless you are a ‘Nielsen Family’, changing the channell, heck, turning on the T.V., will only affect you and your electric bill.
And on a completely different topic I’m 40 pages into “Fable”, enjoying the hëll out of it and and wondering why no promotion of it anywhere as I only stumbled over it because someone left it on the end of the aisle at the local Books a Million. A little more shilling on the site can’t hurt as long as you don’t start the “Buy 15 copies everbody or God’ll take me home” promo….. 😮
I mentioned it last month when it came out. And in a week or so I’ll be doing an overview of “The Gift of PAD,” namely the works of mine that I think would make the best gift ideas for the holidays.
.
PAD
Walt Disney hate the Jews???? PAD realy???
The aftermath of this incident continues to be felt. Juan Williams, hardly a staunch conservative, was fired from NPR after discussing some personal fears he has had regarding Islam.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-for-telling-the-truth/
So “speaking teabagger” is now considered maintaining high journalistic standards, but relating personal anecdotes, without stating that you feel those feelings are even correct, that you had them, is not.
What hypocrisy and selective outrage.
One can only wonder how Jesse Jackson got away with saying “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
.
I disagree with Williams 90% of the time and, unlike him, I have no emotional reaction to seeing Muslims on an airplane since I would expect any terrorists to be smart enough not to dress in such a way as to call attention to themselves, but if he was just describing his feelings how is that so different from what Jackson said?
.
Oh well, maybe this will result in a political reawakening for Mr. Williams. they used to say a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. I think now it’s more likely a liberal who got mugged by political correctness.
.
“One can only wonder how Jesse Jackson got away with saying “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.””
.
Well, for one thing he wasn’t going to fire himself from his own coalition.
See, if I were Williams’ boss, I’d be more concerned about this statement of his:
.
“Jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
.
I read that and I’m thinking, really? THAT is the biggest threat? That’s the biggest problem facing mankind? It’s not…oh…people living in deplorable conditions in some of the poorest nations on earth? It’s not men, woman and children starving? It’s not money or supplies for humane relief never reaching those it’s intended to help because corrupt governments abscond with it? It’s not diseases running rampant in some countries because they’re unequipped to deal with it?
.
It’s not lack of proper education? It’s not that in this country, the number three reason for teen deaths is suicide, and the leading cause of death in black men ages 15-34 is homicide? It’s not that 43.6 million Americans are living below the poverty level? Which do you think those people are more worried about: Jihad, or being able to buy a gallon of milk?
.
It’s not a struggling global economy?
.
It’s not the Amazon rain forest being leveled or global warming or oil spills or incessant polluting of the waters and overfishing, all of which threatens to put the environment so far out of joint that mankind could wind up disappearing?
.
If I’m that reporter’s boss, I’m thinking I’ve got a guy on my staff with his priorities completely out of whack. And if his job is to provide news analysis, I have to question his ability to do that job effectively.
.
PAD
Sounds like there are many many candidates for “biggest threat on the planet.”
.
Of course, if one wishes to nitpick, one could point out that things like “number three reason for teen deaths is suicide” are not in any way shape or form a threat to the planet. In fact, almost all of those things you discuss have little to no effect on the planet, much less threaten its existence.
.
But of course, when we say things like that what we really mean is “threat to OUR existence”. Even those issues that really do impact the planet, like human caused global warming, only threaten our own ability to thrive.
.
But even then, none of those things would at all be likely to lead to our disappearing. Once you reach a low enough population density all those problems vanish. The only man made scenario of any likelihood that could put the species at risk would be nuclear war…which, arguably, could be a consequence of Jihad.
.
So while I would not have picked that particular threat I would be far less likely to question the analytical skills of someone who said that as opposed to anyone who thought that the biggest threat to the planet was teen suicide.
So while I would not have picked that particular threat I would be far less likely to question the analytical skills of someone who said that as opposed to anyone who thought that the biggest threat to the planet was teen suicide.
.
In your haste to disagree with me, Bill you changed a single word in the quote and, as a consequence, wound up writing an entire comment that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
.
The biggest threat “to” the planet, which is what you said, is not what he said or what I quoted. That would be the claim that Jihad is the biggest threat “on” the planet. My point was that there are many, many threats ON the planet. Threats that range from micro-societal to global. And that to single out one single thing and refer to it as the biggest threat on the planet, when there are so many things that are far greater and more immediate threats in both short and long term, is dubious at best. It is certainly a debatable and odd viewpoint for a newsman to have.
.
Which is completely different from talking about threats to the planet.
.
PAD
As God is my witness I read that and in my mind it said “to”. Wow. Egg on my face.
No problem, Bill. Just to try and help, since you seem to be having problems with the word “on,” I’m providing this handy reference source.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkd5dJIVjgM
.
PAD
re Sesame Street– THAT was funny.
.
“So “speaking teabagger” is now considered maintaining high journalistic standards,”
.
No, ‘Learn To Speak Tea Bag’, because that’s what it is actually titled and not the more insulting term the conservative liars… I mean writers… at Red State and other websites claim it’s called, is an animated editorial cartoon by Mark Fiore (who has also made animated editorial cartoons poking fun at Obama that were also carried on NPR.org.) It also never uses the terms “Tea Bagger” or “Tea Bagging” in the animation.
.
It was not a “segment” or a “story” as Red State and other sites have misrepresented it to be. It is also a fairly accurate parody of the Tea Party’s rallies on healthcare during the time period that it was made and published on NPR.org (November 12, 2009.)
.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047
.
What’s also humorous is that so many of the Tea Bag Party defenders are living down to their reputation of speaking on a subject without knowing what they’re talking about by, well, speaking without knowing what they’re talking about in the comments section under the animated editorial cartoon. A quick look at the many comments that just showed up on a year old page in the last few days and the middle of this year shows quite a few taking NPR to task over their use such an offensive term as “Tea Bagger” (despite the fact that this is what a number of the tea Party People called themselves for quite some time before they discovered that it had a more established meaning) when in fact the term is never used in the title or the cartoon.
.
Gotta love the Tea Party. You can put a rake on the ground in front of them, actually point it out to them and many of them will still step on it so that it whams them square in the face and still question you about what happened afterwards.
it should also be pointed out that the ombudsman at NPR also did not think that the piece was all that great: “That said, there are problems with the Tea Bag animation. Chief among them is it doesn’t fit with NPR values, one of which is a belief in civility and civil discourse.”
.
“Fiore is talented, but this cartoon is just a mean-spirited attack on people who think differently than he does and doesn’t broaden the debate. It engages in the same kind of name-calling the cartoon supposedly mocks.”
.
So I would give them a pass on the cartoon. If conservatives want a better example they could look at Nina Totenberg still having a job after wishing AIDS on Jesse Helms’ grandkids.
.
“Fiore is talented, but this cartoon is just a mean-spirited attack on people who think differently than he does and doesn’t broaden the debate. It engages in the same kind of name-calling the cartoon supposedly mocks.”
.
Yeah, but for anyone who was at a Tea Party event during the healthcare flap, at a healthcare “town hall” where Tea Party people showed up or had to work because of an event like that or watched them on TV it pretty much nails dead bang on what you saw. It certainly is a perfect and true parody of the people who were leading so many Tea Party rallies, speaking on behalf of the rallies on TV and pundits that were pro-Tea Party talking about healthcare reform on Fox News.
.
“Nazis! Communism! Socialism! Death Panels! Unplug Grandma! Obama in my doctor’s office! The end of America as we know it! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
“If I’m that reporter’s boss, I’m thinking I’ve got a guy on my staff with his priorities completely out of whack. And if his job is to provide news analysis, I have to question his ability to do that job effectively.”
.
That’s nice. The guy works for NPR for ten years, helps it grow, raises funds for it and is sacked for voicing a PERSONAL ANECDOTE which he in no way shape or form said others should share and he is canned. And it wasn’t so outrageous a statement that he was fired immediately. It took 36 hours – and he wasn’t even given the courtesy of being notified face-to-face – which means that this was a decision that was made after heat was put on by various “rights” groups like FAIR.
.
This is a guy who has written books on the civil rights movement, has been an honest conservative voice in debates with O’Reilly and Hannity for years and you want to cherry pick one quote to question his effectiveness as a reporter? Really? And the quote from the CEO of NPR was nothing short of slanderous. There should be a lawsuit.
.
The ironic thing is Fox gets bashed all the time for leaning too far right. yet here you have a guy who was definitely pulling for Kerry in 2004, an honest liberal who had enough intelligence and passion to express his views there for years while still helping to build NPR. He’s the ONLY liberal O’Reilly has tapped – to my knowledge – to fill-in on his show. You would think NPR would take an opportunity to have him promote his association with them on for Fox’s viewership, yet in their enlightened manner, thy forbade him from mentioning his association with NPR while appearing on Fox.
.
And now NPR has jettisoned someone respected on both sides of the ideological spectrum – Whoopi even said NPR had to get it together – and, besides showing how open they are to free speech, this now leaves them with no black reporters/commentators. And word in Mara Liasson is being targeted next. Lovely stuff.
Nice rant, Jerome.
.
Now show me where I said I would have fired him.
.
PAD
.
Jerome, there is another aspect of this, well, several really, to take in to consideration.
.
NPR is fairly strict about certain things with its reporters, analysts and commentators. I think only C-Span every had stricter rules insofar as what their on air talent could and could not do and say on air. By both NPR’s account and Juan’s comments, NPR had warned Juan Williams in the past that certain things he was saying on Fox News and how he was saying it were crossing their line of acceptability.
.
Where this comes into play on his comments on Fox News, and not just his one “cherry pick[ed]” quote as you presented the case, is that it creates a problem for NPR. Despite the screaming of the Right, NPR news broadcasts tend to be just that; they’re news. I listen to quite a bit of NPR when I don’t have my XM in the car and when they report on a story they keep it to the what and how and offer a few quotes from the people involved. When they discuss the why of the matter it tends to be fairly clinical. I’ve rarely ever heard them present a story where the commentator acted as an advocate and on those rare occasions it was only the most minimal amount of it.
.
Very few of their commentators and analysts that I’ve heard have ever been a party person. Even during the Bush years I heard NPR commentators and analysts discussing how something the administration or the President was doing was actually, in the specific example they were discussing, correct. Juan Williams is far from the only NPR analyst who has, when covering political stories, espoused the belief that both Democrats and Republicans have been right or correct on specific matters. One of the things that a lot of NPR listeners value in the NPR news programming is that they feel that they will get coverage of issues that is as fair, neutral and evenly balanced as can be presented.
.
What Juan has done with some of his comments, and this one in particular, is put that into question where Juan’s ability to do that job is concerned. For one thing, Juan’s commentary and analysis of matters in the news cycle involving Arabs and Muslims will now and forever be questioned insofar as the integrity of the analysis.
.
Juan Williams could give a dead bang on analysis or commentary about an event like the ones we had some years ago where some Arabic gentleman were pulled off of a plane and if that commentary favors the side of the airline personnel that wanted the men removed, even if it was rightly so, his analysis or commentary is tainted by what he said. Can you trust his analysis or commentary to be honest, fair and accurate when he has said on Fox News, amongst other things about Muslims, that he feels fear whenever he sees clearly Arabic men on a plane with him.
.
Put it in other terms with a generic commentator. If someone says on a cable news program that they feel a sense of fear whenever they’re walking down the street at night and see black kids walking towards them from out of the dark because they associate blacks with crime; would you ever be able to trust that commentators commentary or analysis on matter involving race and/or crime? Even if the race issue isn’t in the forefront of the news story; could you ever really trust this commentator’s opinion on an issue where there was an underlying racial component?
.
Like him or not, and I do, this was not his first warning and his comments on Fox News have hurt his ability to be a trusted commentator on some issues. And since so many major issues of late do tie into the Muslim/Arabic factor he has now limited his ability to cover a large number of stories for NPR without raising the Spector of doubt in their listeners’ minds as to whether or not he is being fair or letting his own biases shade his reporting to too great a degree.
.
Should they have fired him? I don’t know and neither do you or the other yapping idiots on Fox News and talk radio. We don’t know how many warnings he’s actually gotten or how severe some of the warnings were. This isn’t a freedom of speech matter. This is an employee/employer matter and like all employees Juan had an employer that he had to answer to and it was his responsibility to follow that employer’s rules. If he failed to do so, and possibly failed to do so on multiple occasions, then he has little to truly complain about and no one to blame but himself.
.
“… this now leaves them with no black reporters/commentators.”
.
Okay, that’s a lie. I’m not saying that you’re the one telling the lie, but you are unquestioningly repeating the lie being told on Fox News and on conservative blogs. Right off the top of my head I can tell you that Mark Austin Thomas of Marketplace Morning, Michel Martin of Tell me More, Tavis Smiley of the Tavis Smiley show and Al Letson of State of the Re:Union are all black. There’s also one part time contributor who is a black female who’s name escapes me at the moment, but I know she’s black because of a commentary she gave on Tyler Perry’s Madea movies. And that’s just from memory. I could probably double or triple that list if I really started digging.
.
So, no, he was not the only black reporter/commentator they have.
.
“And word in Mara Liasson is being targeted next. Lovely stuff.”
.
Yes, and that word, at least as far as I’ve seen, is not coming from Mara but instead coming from the same sources claiming that Juan was the only black reporter/commentator they had so I’ll put as much faith in the reliability of that rumor as it deserves. That would be zero.
I think NPR lost a bit of their moral justification when the CEO made the comment about how Williams should keep this between himself and his psychologist. (She later apologized.). Boy, if I fired an employee and told the press “That black guy is crazy!”, well, back up the money truck.
.
Williams will be fine. He’s richer now, thanks to Fox, he has new cred with their viewers,and people are going to pay way more attention to what he says than before. Fox gets to look like the good guys and they have a personality that people will pay more attention to. NPR just pìššëd øff a bunch of folks during pledge week and anyone who works there now had best keep their opinions to themselves, lest they say something edgy and it ends up all over the net with headlines like “they fired Juan Williams and kept THIS guy!”
I also think it’s pretty low class for NPR to just throw out there that “we’ve had problems with Juan in the past” and just leave it at that. If they feel the need to say that they should have the obligation to explicitly say what those problems were. Otherwise it leaves the impression that they are avoiding it because they know these “transgressions” are no worse than what Nina Totenberg, for one, does on a regular basis.
.
Again, if a school district did this to a teacher…she’s be set for life. Of course, so is Williams. i suspect that losing a job at NPR to gain one at Fox is like being fired off the cast of A FEW BRAINS MORE so you can take a role on THE WALKING DEAD. (Bill, master of cheap product placement)
The fact that Williams so quickly signed with Fox? It speaks for itself.
Well, Williams has worked for both for some time. According to people inside NPR. they have had many complaints from NPR listeners about having a guy on NPR who also appears on Fox. (NPR also tried to get mara liasson to quit Fox) It would seem that Fox fans are not as upset at having on a guy who also appears on NPR.
.
Which does indeed speak for itself.
.
“NPR just pìššëd øff a bunch of folks during pledge week and anyone who works there now had best keep their opinions to themselves, lest they say something edgy and it ends up all over the net with headlines like “they fired Juan Williams and kept THIS guy!””
.
The only people NPR has really “pìššëd øff” is people who didn’t listen to them to begin with. The only noise I’m hearing from people over this matter is coming from the same people who always call NPR “liberal propaganda” while not being able to actually tell you the first thing about their programs.
i suspect that losing a job at NPR to gain one at Fox is like being fired off the cast of A FEW BRAINS MORE so you can take a role on THE WALKING DEAD.
.
It is if popularity is the only yardstick you use to measure things.
.
Juan Williams may be getting more money and a wider audience on Fox, but at what price? The problem with cable news networks like Fox, MSNBC, and to an increasing extent CNN is that their sound-bite formats make it all but impossible to report facts in any kind of meaningful context. As for analysis, forget it. The most you’ll get from these networks is partisan hacks screaming talking points at each other.
.
NPR is far from perfect but nevertheless is far superior to cable junk-news networks. It’s one of the few places where calm, rational discourse is still the norm rather than the exception, and “fair and balanced” reporting is more than just a slogan.
.
I think Juan Williams has lost more than he’s gained. He may be more popular than ever, but I believe his contribution to the national discourse will be less substantive. The format of the cable news networks won’t allow anything better.
Which does indeed speak for itself.
.
If by which you mean Fox News’ viewers are more open-minded than NPR’s listeners, I think you’re drawing unwarranted conclusions based on scant facts.
.
“It would seem that Fox fans are not as upset at having on a guy who also appears on NPR.
.
Which does indeed speak for itself.”
.
I think the only thing that it speaks to is what I mentioned above. People would see (or at least hear of) Juan’s comments on Fox News and it made some of his commentaries and analysis on NPR subject to greater scrutiny. The more well known you become as a passionate advocate the more your “neutral” commentary and analysis comes under question. Keith Olbermann could start doing work as an NPR analysis tomorrow and even if he were really trying to be as fair, honest and neutral as possible I couldn’t listen to him because he has become such an advocate for “his side” in the last four years. He could do an analysis that’s been vetted and approved by the NPR higher ups as spot bang on, but if his analysis even rightly comes of agreeing with Democrats or disagreeing with Republicans I’m going to question it because of his growing reputation as an advocacy journalist.
.
Juan has often gotten on Fox News and acted as a loud and passionate advocate for various issues and points of view. Whether you think it’s right or wrong, that violates the standards that NPR wants for its commentators and analysts. Mara has some detractors, but she doesn’t get anywhere near the flak that Juan catches because her commentary on Fox News is very calm, very controlled, very analytical and does not play to the Fox News pattern of hype and argument in place of commentary and analysis. Juan was often the opposite of that.
.
“I also think it’s pretty low class for NPR to just throw out there that “we’ve had problems with Juan in the past” and just leave it at that.”
.
“I think NPR lost a bit of their moral justification when the CEO made the comment about how Williams should keep this between himself and his psychologist. (She later apologized.)”
.
To be sure their responses to the flap have been clumsy as hëll and how this could have caught them off guard I have no idea. There’s no way they could have not known that firing Juan for his Fox related duties wasn’t going to be turned into a faux scandal by Fox and others. Yet their initial responses to inquiries have shown zero thought in them.
.
“If they feel the need to say that they should have the obligation to explicitly say what those problems were.”
.
They might also be dancing around employer/employee regulations. I’ve had any number of employers who could justify termination for repeat violations of policy or repeated past issues with an employee but, either due to company policy, the law or a little of both, could not give specifics on the matters. You mention teachers and schools. We’ve had teachers fired around here for disciplinary reasons. When the press asks for a statement they might say that there have bas been a history of violations by this teacher but that they are not allowed to go into details. It could be the same here.
.
It doesn’t even strike me as low class to point it out here since the accusation they were responding to was that they fired him just for this one isolated incident. Maybe they can’t or won’t say specifically what other matters they’ve gone over with him, but one look at the policies that they have for their employees and comparing that to Juan’s many Fox News appearances and you can see a lot of times that were the likely past examples.
Also, Jerome, I’m curious as to your feelings on whether a code of ethics, openly provided by an employer, should apply to all employees or only the ones you like.
.
Specifically, NPR has a Code of Ethics, easily locatable on line, that stipulates all the expectations for its employees. I would guide you to Section V, Paragraph 10:
.
10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.
.
No matter what you or I think about rights to free expression, this is a stated and understood term of his employment. He flagrantly violated it. Repeatedly. That’s game over.
.
Y’know…if I were working for NPR, and Fox was dangling a lucrative three year, $2.3 million contract in front of me, and I needed a way to break my contract at NPR, I’d do exactly what Juan Williams did.
.
Just sayin’…
.
PAD
Then when will the other journalists at NPR who participate in things like that get canned? I would not call wishing AIDS on a senator and his family fact based analysis.
.
There is also a question as to whether, as an analyst Williams was a “journalist” under the same code of ethics. Williams said they made him an analyst so that he could still go on shows like that. Of course, this may be his own self serving interpretation.
.
I think you’re drawing unwarranted conclusions based on scant facts.
.
Absolutely. I was just flipping it around at Craig. very few things actually “speak for themselves” and even fewer of the things that people claim speak that way.
.
The only people NPR has really “pìššëd øff” is people who didn’t listen to them to begin with.
.
I dunno, there have been some rumblings from liberals and even some Islamic groups. With good reason–does anyone think that this has enhanced the perception of Muslims in America
.
“… and even some Islamic groups.”
.
Well, yeah, they’re catching flak because a lot of the conservative talkers are brandishing this incident like a club at them and playing up the “you can’t say anything about the Muslims” card again. While it might be a legitimate card to play when, say, Comedy Central freaks out, this is not really a good example of it.
Just sayin’…
.
Well, Williams is out there again today saying that NPR was looking for a reason to fire him. Considering that they’d warned him in the past, Williams probably isn’t far off. Although, it also means he had it coming.
.
Ahh, and this doesn’t surprise me:
AP – “In response to the firing, South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint planned to introduce legislation to end federal funding for NPR, his spokesman Wesley Denton said Thursday night. Denton said the senator would expand upon his proposal in a statement on Friday.”
.
NPR strives for unbiased news, and it’s been obvious for awhile now that the GOP very much dislikes them for it. After all, if it isn’t presented with a conservative bias, it’s completely left wing.
.
Maybe while he’s at it, DeMint could introduce some legislation to give Fox News federal funding, which seems to be the end goal anyways.
Well, Williams is out there again today saying that NPR was looking for a reason to fire him. Considering that they’d warned him in the past, Williams probably isn’t far off. Although, it also means he had it coming.
.
Well, if I knew that my employer wanted to fire me, I’d be dámņëd sure to be looking around to see what I could jump to. And once everything was in place (and 3-year, $2.3 million contracts don’t just come out of nowhere) I’d do what was necessary to get out of the previous one.
.
But that could just be me…
.
PAD
Yeah, I think it’s more that Williams is painting himself out to be some kind of victim, up to and bringing out the race card saying there are no other blacks at NPR (paraphrase).
.
He is anything but a victim in this situation.
It may be that NPR’s biggest mistake was failing to emphasize his repeated violation of their Code of Ethics which should apply to everyone, and point out that, Gee, it’s amazing just how fast that contract turned up. I mean, $2.3 million is an odd figure. Two million, three million, maybe even 2.5, I get. But $2.3 sounds like something that was negotiated. And I just don’t think you negotiate a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract overnight.
.
Think about it: You get to leave a company where you’re not happy for another company where you’ll get plenty of national TV exposure and you leave your former employers looking like idiots and subject to Congressional investigation. There’s way too many wins for Williams for me not to be suspicious.
.
PAD
Then when will the other journalists at NPR who participate in things like that get canned? I would not call wishing AIDS on a senator and his family fact based analysis.
.
You’re assuming an awful lot, there. For one thing, how do you know Nina Totenberg wasn’t taken to task by NPR in private for that remark? Also, NPR said they had warned Williams more than once about this sort of thing. How do you know he simply hadn’t come to the end of his rope with them?
.
Also, who are “the other journalists at NPR the other journalists at NPR who participate in things like that”? You only mentioned one other: Nina Totenberg. Who else at NPR has violated their code of ethics repeatedly enough to deserve to be “canned,” as you put it?
also, who are “the other journalists at NPR the other journalists at NPR who participate in things like that”? You only mentioned one other: Nina Totenberg. Who else at NPR has violated their code of ethics repeatedly enough to deserve to be “canned,” as you put it?
.
I don’t know all the names of the NPR journalists who participate in opinion shows but I know there has to be more than one, based on the fact that the NPR Ombudsmen, in critisizing Nina totenberg for a different incident than the helms one said Frequently NPR journalists speak in public or write op-ed pieces in which their personal positions are expressed, but should they?
.
The ombudsmen also criticized Terry Gross for a bad performance on the Bill o’Reilly show, saying “Unfortunately, the (O’Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR’s liberal media bias . . . by coming across as a proFranken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop.”
.
Gwen Ifill has opined a few humdingers in her day as well. She seems particularly prone to describing opponents with terrorist metaphors: “It was a bill that was doomed to die. The last time you heard people so eager to claim responsibility for something like this, they were terrorists.”; “In the end it was a procedural assassination. Republicans drove up the cost of the bill…”; “it is in some ways, politically, a very violent action for Ken Starr to leave this on them weeks before an election when they’re trying to decide how to deal with it.”
.
And my favorite–“The unemployment rate is at record highs, and somehow he [Bush] says this is Congress’s fault.” which just amuses me because it is A-wrong since unemployment was at 6.1% in May of 2003, nowhere near a record at the time as anyone with a passing familiarity to history can tell you; B–the idea that the president is responsible for whatever the unemployment rate is must be a bitter pill to swallow now and C–in a related vein, what wouldn’t we give to get back to a rate of 6.1% now? If the rate gets down to 6.1 in a year or two Obama will be able to throw a parade.
.
Not that I would fire any of them over this. frankly, the NPR CEO’s snark about Williams’ mental condition was far more egregious but I doubt she will fire herself.
I don’t know all the names of the NPR journalists who participate in opinion shows but I know there has to be more than one…
.
My question isn’t whether any other NPR journalists have participated in “opinion shows,” but whether you knew of any other than Nina Totenberg who may have said anything on such shows that violates NPR’s code of ethics. The fact that you can’t provide any examples indicates the answer to my question is far simpler than the one you gave: the real answer is simply that you don’t know.
.
She seems particularly prone to describing opponents with terrorist metaphors…
.
I’m not sure what you mean by “opponents.” Do you believe Republicans are her “opponents?” Because as host of “Washington Week in Review” she has been a vocal critic of Barack Obama, among other Democrats. Are you familiar with her work, or are you simply looking at a few choice quotes out of context? If it’s the latter, I’d suggest you watch her for a bit before making up your mind about her.
Is it really accurate to describe her as a “vocal critic” of Obama? ood job, I thought.I know a lot of conservative pundits who have had some harsh words to say about Bush on one topic or another but i would not describe them as vocal critics.
.
I know her from the VP debates where she did a good job, I thought. like all pundits–and the examples I gave were pretty clear examples of punditry not journalism, I think–she will occasionally say something foolish or easily disproven or inconsistent with previous statements (I’m sure she would like to take back needling Bush on the 6.1% unemployment rate…unless she is about to do the same to Obama for the current 10%). No harm no foul.
.
here’s MICHEL MARTIN from NPR on CNN giving her oinion on the New york city “mosque”: “Did anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh – who adhered to a cultic, white supremacist cultic version of Christianity – bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma?”
.
That’s an opinion, a pretty partisan one, and one not clearly consistent with the facts. I don’t know what Christian cult martin alludes to. McVeigh said he was an agnostic in a letter before he died and is quoted as saying that science was his religion. I can only imagine how NPR would feel if one of their commentators used McVeigh as an example of pro-science agnostic thinking.
.
And whataya mean I didn’t provide any examples? What’s Terry Gross, chopped liver?
.
Martin has appeared on Bill Maher’s show. Bill freaking Maher. If that does not qualify as They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis. I don’t know what does, unless one thinks that Maher’s tirades against vaccines and germ theory are based in fact.
.
But hey, I’m a capitalist, NPR can hire and fire who they want. I would not give them any tax finds but that is an opinion that would not change even if they went to a new broadcasting policy of “All Bill’s Opinions, All The Time”. they have every right ti fire Williams and they can even justify it as they chose to. Doesn’t mean I will buy it though.
I see I’m late to this but, there was a mosque in one of the twin towers. No one complained about it.
Not to mention that there was already a mosque near Ground Zero. No one complained about that, either.
.
PAD