The thing is, guys like Sharpton and Jackson, they were just doing same-old same-old.
The one’s I’m really annoyed with is the National Association of Black Journalists. They were the first ones out of the gate to call for the firing of Don Imus, and that’s part of what gave the story legs.
Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.
The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat.
In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, “We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.”
But they didn’t. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down. Popeye-like, they decided that this was all they could stands cause they couldn’t stands no more. Their belief, apparently, was that they shouldn’t have to tolerate Imus’s racist opinions anymore.
Except they were wrong. Because that’s the price you pay for living in a free society. One’s business should always be with what your opponent says, not with your opponent himself, and people calling themselves journalists should have understood that.
The answer to free speech is always more free speech…not the shutting down of that speech.
PAD
• 
As a comparison, suppose an organization which consisted of young females supported a program which helped young females at the expense of old males. Saying “This doesn’t improve the situation overall, and it hurts old men” would not be much of an argument to make the organization change its ways – It would only be looking out for the interests of its members.
And saying that would not in any way be saying that this organization has different rights than the rest of us. So I’m still puzzled over how you got that idea from what PAD said.
Bill Mulligan: That was more in response to Luigi Novi, who – I think – believes that an association with the word “journalist” in its name is honor-bound to form its opinions entirely on the basis of what is best for journalism. Part of free speech is that Luigi is not permitted to determine what topics and opinions other people may address. This comes back to PAD because he opposes NABJ’s decision to form its opinions based on the interests of B instead of J. Clearly, he doesn’t suggest NABJ be stopped, but merely bemoans its stupidity in not thinking as he tells it.
Isn’t that a valid opinion? If journalism suffers won’t Black journalists be hurt as well?
One can argue that the Imus situation has resulted in more damage to free speech than it has contributed to any gains for African-Americans. In that case the decision of the NABJ was foolish and short sighted. Of course, one could easily take the exact opposing point of view.
If your argument is just that PAD thinks that people who disagree with him are wrong…well…how exactky does that make him different from anyone else? I mean, if you think that the people who disagree with you are correct shouldn’t you change you opinion to match theirs? What am I missing?
“Why does NABJ’s offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus’s does not?”
Because Don Imus did nothing to try and stop other people from expressing themselves.
I mean, it takes an almost willful misreading of my statements to misunderstand what I’ve been saying.
If the group was called the National Association of Black Censors, then it’s a different story. And as I noted, guys like Sharpton…you expect them to try and censor others in a manner that they would shriek over if the same tactics were applied to them. But these are journalists, who owe their livelihood to valuing free expression. If they elevate the color of their skin or the level of their indignation over the fundamental philosophy that supports their jobs, then they are betraying that philosophy.
I never said they should be PREVENTED from saying what they did. I said they should not have said it in the first place because it was a betrayal of free speech principles. In other words: Just because they COULD say what they did doesn’t mean they SHOULD have said what they did.
PAD
PAD: Clearly you hold free speech as an extremely important thing; I agree with you there. It appears that you think it is the only important thing; I do not agree with you there. It would be putting words in your mouth to speculate on your response if Imus’s comments hit much closer to home. In fact, he has said things before which certainly must have been offensive – antisemitic things, certainly; anti-Israel, I don’t know, but probably, yes; insults of people based on appearance, I’m certain, some of it probably applicable to your current or previous appearance. That you have not compromised on your strong free speech beliefs is quite commendable (and no, there isn’t a hidden attack coming). Whether it seems to you like good sense or not, many people hold other values in competition with free speech, and some of them value their comfort, safety or self image higher than what seems an abstraction. That you believe it is sinful for the NABJ to promote restraint of free speech doesn’t change the fact that they just don’t see things the way you do. If you could hear what the members of the NABJ would think of your “sorta” defense of Imus, it might go something like this: “Yes, that Peter David has the RIGHT to say that. It’s a free country, and he can spew that kind of bilge if he wants to, but we’re just saying….We oppose anyone who attacks us! Anti-racism is an important thing, and in the balance, it outweighs the free speech issues that mean so much to Mr. David.” I don’t know which pole of the argument is more convincing, because there really are a lot of competing interests, and no outcome is possible which doesn’t slight one or more interest.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but those who weigh things differently aren’t necessarily wrong either.
Getting off my high horse for a moment – OK – PAD can disagree with whomever he wants. If I am wrong that he is going beyond opinion and declaring what can and cannot be done by the NABJ – deciding for it its mission and goals – all of this has been nitpicking.
Since he agrees with the stand of the ACLU as to the rights of Nazis to have free speech…and given that he’s Jewish…and given what Nazi’s tend to do to Jews…I don’t think you need to speculate on what would happen if someone’s free speech “hit close to home”.
Yes, Bill. You may have noticed that I didn’t speculate.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 06:24 PM
Yes, Bill. You may have noticed that I didn’t speculate.
Then there was no reason to bring it up.
You obviously have a personal axe to grind against Peter. Don’t know why. Don’t care. But it’s getting tiresome.
Jeffrey, I’ve annotated your your own words to where they demonstrate a complete compatibility to my point you otherwise claim is incomprehensible. Thank you for supporting my point as Bobb and Micha have already done.
My reply does not demonstrate a lack of understanding in what you say.
Since you didn’t find the joke funny, and I didn’t find the joke funny, how does your response that I am humorless demonstrate the deaf ears are not yours? What in our compatibility of our not finding humor in the failed joke demonstrates our incompatibility is based on my denseness and not yours?
Who’s reputation would not benefit from such a contribution? You? Well, good for you that you should enjoy any privilege where your social standing would not benefit from perhaps the largest contribution to the human race in History.
And is that why people perform great contributions to society and great acts of heroism: to raise their esteem in the eyes of others?
As far as I am presenting a reason distilled to a heretofore purity that renders people and their thinking less dependent on the approval of others, I plainly am, and have always been, for freedom — and I am therefore not ashamed of how I spend my time here.
But not unconditionally, otherwise journalists would shelter the fabrication of stories. As far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.
The issue then is unambiguously settled against Peter’s criticism of the NABJ until someone can provide a reason why this is no longer true. If his dismissal of this example of pure logic depends on his calling me an idiot, shame on him for letting an idiot call check on him and his walking away from the gameboard he set in the firstplace.
I don’t see Al Sharpton protesting anything bad said about Ms. Rice.
I stand corrected: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/13/2007-05-13_dog_gone_cbs_axes_radio_show_after_prank.html
The pair – whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia – apologized Friday after a broadcast in which a guest mused about raping Secretary of State Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth.
They are still expected to be on the air tomorrow.
…The outrage was led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who said yesterday he wants to meet Hughes and Cumia’s bosses about the rape comments.
“My personal feeling is they should have already been fired,” he said.
Sharpton may now be the most powerful man in radio.
“The pair – whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia – apologized Friday after a broadcast in which a guest mused about raping Secretary of State Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth.”
Rape is never funny, no matter who you insult.
Jeffrey Frawley: Well, just to remain as uncooperative as possible, let me throw this out: They call themselves the National Association of Black Journalists because A. the organization has members nationwide (I bet this is true); B. they are an association (again, I’d be surprised if they are not); C. their membership is for the most part black (very likely) and D. the membership consists of journalists (probable).
Luigi Novi: An organization is not simply a group that assembles randomly and then names itself according to who’s there. An organization forms because it has mutual interests and goals, and those goals are indicated in part by its name. It should not be the goal of journalists to try and get someone fired for saying something offensive—particularly after he has apologized. No interests of journalism were served by Imus’ firing. If the NAACP called for his firing, I could at least find that a bit more understandable; Imus maligned African American woman, so the NAACP would not want to that go unchallenged as it may have the effect of legitimizing that. (I’d still disagree that they should be more forgiving in light of his apology, but that’s a separate point.)
Jeffrey Frawley: With that out of the way, they choose to express themselves as they wish, rather than asking Luigi Novi what he thinks.
Luigi Novi: Which is not the topic of this discussion.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Criticizing the validity of one’s statement” is a little bit different from saying that an association of journalists has no business saying something with which you disagree.
Luigi Novi: Which is not what Peter did. As soon as you’re interested in returning to the actual topic of this discussion, and referring to what Peter actually said, feel free to do so.
Jeffrey Frawley: “Criticizing the validity…” is pointing out the error in the reasoning of a statement. The other is more of an ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say.
Luigi Novi: No.
One can criticize the validity of different aspects of a statement. They are not limited by your narrow imagination or interpretation of that phrase.
The fact remains that disagreeing with the association’s actions in question is not the same thing as wanting to limit their speech.
Jeffrey Frawley: Bill Mulligan: That was more in response to Luigi Novi, who – I think – believes that an association with the word “journalist” in its name is honor-bound to form its opinions entirely on the basis of what is best for journalism. Part of free speech is that Luigi is not permitted to determine what topics and opinions other people may address.
Luigi Novi: None of this bears any resemblance to what I have actually said. Try again.
Jeffrey Frawley: This comes back to PAD because he opposes NABJ’s decision to form its opinions based on the interests of B instead of J. Clearly, he doesn’t suggest NABJ be stopped, but merely bemoans its stupidity in not thinking as he tells it.
Luigi Novi: And bemoaning one’s stupidity is not tantamount to trying to limit their freedom of speech.
Jeffrey Frawley: PAD: Clearly you hold free speech as an extremely important thing; I agree with you there. It appears that you think it is the only important thing.
Luigi Novi: Nope. That’s just another one of your Straw Men. He never said this. Try again.
Luigi Novi remains impenetrable. The little bit I do understand has him taking my disagreement with some of his own arguments as specific criticism of PAD. In fact, it is specific criticism of Luigi Novi.
Jeffrey, I don’t think he’s saying anything all that impenetrable.
Well, I tried giving Jeffy the benefit of the doubt but should’ve known better. He’s a troll with a history of coming here with the sole purpose of using any flimsy excuse to pick a fight. This thread from June of last year is a good example.
Jeeze, I’d forgotten all about that, which shows what an impression he made. Ok, done now.
Bill Mulligan: I do find it impenetrable. Perhaps you’ll allow me to continue doing so.
Bill Myers: Yes, that has a lot to do with this conversation. I still stand by the position I took in the string you reference: PAD made a joke about Paul McCartney’s divorce; I thought it unfunny and speculated that he would have found such a mockery of his own divorce tasteless. Several here thought it incredibly cruel of me to say so, or even to mention that he had in fact gotten a divorce. PAD said (on this string or another – I don’t recall) that I had offended his wife by mentioning this. I thought she probably already had a good idea of the provenance of his first three daughters and wasn’t surprised to hear they had a mother. You could have found examples of me being needlessly cruel, but this isn’t one of them. If PAD felt divorce jokes were tasteful, he had no business being offended by the suggestion of one; If he did not, then my point – that it was cruel to mock Paul McCartney for getting a divorce – was proven.
Jeffrey, how does Peter’s position qualify as an “ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say” and your criticism of him not qualify for the same alleged hypocrisy?
“That you believe it is sinful for the NABJ to promote restraint of free speech doesn’t change the fact that they just don’t see things the way you do.”
Obviously. The problem is, the way I see it is consistent with the free speech that is necessary for journalists to function, and the way they see it…isn’t.
“Rape is never funny, no matter who you insult.”
Oh really.
Not that I’m endorsing the Opie and Anthony crap, but since you said that: What else is the monster’s kidnapping and sexual relationships with Elizabeth in “Young Frankenstein” *but* playing rape for laughs?
PAD
As you’ve never retreated from your specific references to unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, I have no reservation against reiterating the qualification that seems to settle this issue definitively: as far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.
Borat was able to milk a laugh at the expense of the character’s sister by amusing himself with an inane, extended joke about his sister’s rape by their caged, mentally-defective brother, then asking the humor expert if rape was then not funny, and the expert saying no, rape is never funny. The humor was enhance by the establishment of a formidable bond of intimacy with its audience, and the laughter in the theater was real.
In the immortal words of the ever-wise George Carlin:
“I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.”
-Rex Hondo-
PAD – I guess you win. Your view of free speech is, at least, self-consistent. It’s true that the NABJ’s position is not good for journalism, and, since you are very clear in saying you don’t want to interfere with NABJ’s right to say self-destructive things, there is very little ground left to argue over. I think it was Mike, rather than you, who insisted that an association of black journalists is REQUIRED to form its opinions based on the interests of journalism rather than blacks. He, you and I all agree that maximum free speech is a wiser goal than is trampling on free speech to teach Imus a lesson. I guess I have trouble distinguishing between your opinions (which you are certainly entitled to have) and orders to other people on what they can and cannot do. Apparently the problem is more in my understanding than your posts, based on popular reaction.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 07:28 AM
Bill Myers: Yes, that has a lot to do with this conversation.
Actually, yeah, it does. It firmly establishes that your behavior here is part of a larger pattern of trolling. You’re a waste of time. Good-bye.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 09:38 AM
I guess I have trouble distinguishing between your opinions (which you are certainly entitled to have) and orders to other people on what they can and cannot do. Apparently the problem is more in my understanding than your posts, based on popular reaction.
Okay, wow.
Geez.
I saw the above just after I submitted my last post.
People can surprise you.
Jeffrey Frawley, perhaps I misjudged you. At the very least, I have to give you credit for being willing to listen to others. Not everyone does that.
George Carlin can make anything funny.
He just turned 70 this past weekend, so we should all wish him a happy birthday.
Well, he couldn’t have made Borat funny. Am I the only one who thought Borat was the most overrated movie since Kill Bill vol I (Another movie that I seem to be alone in not liking)?
Since I haven’t seen Borat and don’t remeber if I saw Young Frankinstein, I don’t know if rape was funny in that context. It is hard for me to think of rape as funny in any context, but perhaps there are contexts in which it could be funny. It seems to me that for rape to be funny it can’t really be rape, but I am not expert on rape in humor. I just made a general statement.
————–
“true that the NABJ’s position is not good for journalism, and, since you are very clear in saying you don’t want to interfere with NABJ’s right to say self-destructive things, there is very little ground left to argue over.”
Yes. That’s the point I was trying to make 7 posts ago.
I would also submit that the NABJ’s position is not good for blacks either. It deflected the discussion away from the inappropriateness of Imus’s original words and created the impression that blacks are more powerful than they really are and that Imus is somehow a victim.
“I think it was Mike, rather than you, who insisted that an association of black journalists is REQUIRED to form its opinions based on the interests of journalism rather than blacks. He, you and I all agree that maximum free speech is a wiser goal than is trampling on free speech to teach Imus a lesson.”
What Mike said has very little to do with what PAD said, or anybody else in this thread (or in this solar system) for that matter.
Bill Myers: Don’t be so quick to forgive me. Some of my posts have been pretty áššhølë-ÿ, but I’ve been trying to behave on this string. I nearly agree with PAD’s views on the importance of free speech and the self-contradiction of journalists calling for punishment for unpleasant statements. I just think he underestimates the importance some people give to other concerns. For whatever reason he has, he is willing to tolerate even speech which attacks him personally – antisemitism, pro-fascism, ad hominem attacks on nationality, appearance, etc. – and that is completely consistent with his position on a free press. It just seems myopic to assume everyone will recognize the correctness of his opinions. I mustn’t put words into his mouth, but I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt. Lewd or threatening comments about close family members, for example, might make him for once value the free press less than family love. Speaking for myself, I’m sure I would turn my back on those principles. I’m just cynical enough to think virtually everyone has such a hot button; For the NAMJ, race baiting may be that button.
On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict. His posts seem like throwing out words whose meanings are known only to himself, except when he makes flat statements about what the NABJ’s focus must be – because he says so. Those statements are pretty clear, but I don’t agree with them. If “The National Association of Black Journalists” cares to look out for its members’ interests as blacks, rather than as journalists, that’s their own business. It’s fair game to say it isn’t doing what’s best for journalism (as PAD does say); It’s not fair game to deny it the standing to say what it wants (as PAD does not, but I think Mike would, if he could).
The string you noted: It would be provocative for me to rehash my position there, except to say PAD joked about Paul McCartney’s divorce, I took strong exception, and I thought the pot was calling the kettle black. I still don’t know why it was supposedly fine for PAD to make light of someone else’s divorce, but hugely offensive for me to mention his. Someone – not PAD, whose sense of ethics appears better developed than this – suggested that the distinction was that McCartney was unlikely to read the comments about him, while PAD was certain to read comments aimed at him. There is a distinction, but it works in the exact opposite of what the poster suggested. It is less honorable to talk behind someone’s back than it is to confront him. Anonymous sniping – which the poster liked very much – is cowardly. Direct criticism lets the target have a chance to respond: If it is poorly founded, it can be exposed (as some think they have my posts, whether I agree or not). If it is well founded, at least the target knows about it. In this particular case, very obviously PAD felt that his joke was not transgressive; Many agreed with him, but I did not. There really isn’t much more to it.
“I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt.”
That’s not the point. There are many subjects that would cause one personor another to erupt, respond angrily, leave or shut down threads, write irate letters to the editor, shroud or whatever. Certainly Imus’s original statement deserves much condemnation. But al these responses fall under the category of using free speech in order to combat people who use free speech in order to promote hatred or are extremely rude and so forth. Calling for someone to be fired falls under a different category, even if we assume that the harm to Imus is not that significant and that he will find other venues from which he can make racist jokes.
“On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict. His posts seem like throwing out words whose meanings are known only to himself, except when he makes flat statements about what the NABJ’s focus must be – because he says so. Those statements are pretty clear, but I don’t agree with them. If “The National Association of Black Journalists” cares to look out for its members’ interests as blacks, rather than as journalists, that’s their own business. It’s fair game to say it isn’t doing what’s best for journalism (as PAD does say); It’s not fair game to deny it the standing to say what it wants (as PAD does not, but I think Mike would, if he could).”
I’m afraid you completely don’t understand what Mike’s been saying, repeatedly. You have good reason, since he’s often incoherent, and his ideas tend to the absurd. But in any case, he hasn’t been saying what you think he does. His argument is that the NABJ, as a journalistic association, was correct to call for Imus to be fired because (drumroll): when Imus was making his jokes he was violating journalistic ethics againt fabricating stories because his jokes were like fabricated stories. Do you find this idea convincing? If not, you are not alone.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 11:38 AM
It just seems myopic to assume everyone will recognize the correctness of his opinions.
Except he’s not doing that. He’s acting as an advocate for his point-of-view, articulating it in an attempt to persuade others that it is correct. In my case, he succeeded. I was on the fence about this issue until I read Peter’s cogent and well-reasoned thoughts.
The bottom line is this: if the leaders of the NABJ continue to hold a contrary point-of-view, then Peter will likely continue to disagree with them. Your criticism of Peter could just as easily apply to the NABJ. Perhaps moreso: they were among the groups who lobbied to have Imus fired, after all.
Anyone who holds a firm belief in something believes, by extension, that those who disagree are incorrect. Peter is not unique in that regard, and it seems odd to me that you keep pounding on him when there are others — myself included — who have articulated the same or similar beliefs in this very thread.
As for the Paul McCartney thread, I regret having brought it up. I’ve dredged up something that upset both Peter and his wife. May I ask that we drop it? I’d rather not be responsible for upsetting our host unnecessarily.
Micha: If you are right about Mike, then I agree that categorizing jokes as fabricated stories is absurd. That kind of thinking would mean that any form of scripted broadcasting, novel, short story or poem would be fair game. On the subject of trigger points, I just can’t imagine anyone continuing to champion the right of people to attack what is dearest to them – killing or degrading loved ones, and that sort of thing. You are right that the principles involved don’t change, but one would have to have a monomaniacal adoration of free speech to follow through in terrible circumstances: It’s RIGHT, but too difficult to expect from anyone.
” just can’t imagine anyone continuing to champion the right of people to attack what is dearest to them – killing or degrading loved ones.”
I don’t think killing falls under freedom of speech.
In any case, when somebody says something truely offensive you have the right, and in some cases the duty, to go after him very aggresively — using words. Imus seems to have deserved to be grilled by anybody black or white, male or female, for his statements. But by pressuring his company to fire him (assuming that was the cause for his firing) the NABJ went beyond criticizing him severely, and it would seem rightfully, for his racism: they restricted his ability to speak at all (although not completely of course). In so doing they also harmed the issue they were trying to promote.
About Mike, you can look for yourself at his original posts.
Jeffrey Frawley: Luigi Novi remains impenetrable. The little bit I do understand has him taking my disagreement with some of his own arguments as specific criticism of PAD.
Luigi Novi: I did no such thing. I merely pointed out when you deliberately distorted his words (and mine), and pointed out that thinking that what someone says or does is wrong is not the same thing as calling for their right to do or say to be curtailed.
When Luigi Novi says something with which I disagree – “(B)y calling itself an association of JOURNALISTS it’s making a statement that its devotion is to the ideals of, Oh, I don’t know….JOURNALISM?” he should have enough self-awareness to know that he is the one who said it, and he is the one with whom I am disagreeing. PAD is an entirely different person (I assume – Some time ago someone thought I was a stalking horse PAD had created. It really doesn’t seem any more likely in this case than the last.) whose postings appear near the acronym “PAD,” rather than “Luigi Novi.” I suspect that identifying your own posts with his persona makes you feel a bit more invulnerable to criticism. In that quote, you made quite a big deal of the significance of the word “Journalists” in “The National Association of Black Journalists.” A completely parallel argument could be made for the significance of the word “Black.” I don’t think it would be for the best for the association to parse all issues exclusively in terms of “Black,” but I can’t expect that aspect to be ignored, either. There is no magic in the words: It’s a collection of black journalists which expresses the will of the membership. They have taken no oath to join an ascetic brotherhood; They are adult men and women who decided they hated Imus’s guts. I don’t know what your profession is, or with what group you identify yourself, but it wouldn’t amaze me if you formed some of your opinions on your own, rather than regurgitating the boilerplate of the group. I think PAD’s grasp of such things is quite a bit better than Luigi Novi’s.
Micha – I think it’s important that the NABJ was not Imus’s employer, so it neither dismissed him unfairly nor restricted his right of free speech. His employers are the ones who fired him, right or wrong, and whose actions diminished his access to an audience. If it is true that his contract protected him from firing at will, then he might collect damages from them for firing him. Sleazeball that he is, he would still deserve correct treatment under his contract. Free speech would mean very little if one were not free to act as NABJ has – advocating whatever policies it favors. Let’s try this: 1. I don’t like the current Senior Senator from such and such a state. 2. I tell everyone I can reach how I feel about him, and I recommend that he be voted out. 3. I organize marches against the SOB, and plant people in the audience at his campaign speeches, so as to ask him embarrassing questions. 4. He becomes so hated that he is impeached and convicted, and finds himself out of a job. Was I not entirely within my rights to do so? If the NABJ sees things in this way, that’s how it’s going to be.
Let’s go over it one last time. (whenever I attribute an opinion to PAD, I wil try to represent his opinion as I understand it. If I get it wrong, I’m sorry).
1) The NABJ has the right to say whatever they want. Nobody said otherwise at any point. So continuing discussion on this point is a waste of time.
2) The NABJ is an organization of journalists, so Peter feels they should represent ideals of journalism. that seems reasonable, regardless of the fact that they happen to be black.
3) The NABJ is a black organization so it was dismayed by Imus’s words. That’s understandable. a strong response was called for. But I don’t think it is in the best interest of blacks to be perceived as being able to get people fired for annoying them. Nor is the fact that they’re black mean that they should be held to lesser ideals than other journalists, or for that matter people in general. PAD, who is not a journalist, also seems to hold himself to high standards on the issue of freedom of speech, and so do others on this board, it would seem.
4) I don’t live in the US so I have no way to judge what happened. The way it has been presented to me by the people on this thread, Imus was only fired as a result of pressure by black organizations like the NABJ, and not for other reasons, like say a drop in audiences. If that’s true, then the NABJ wielded its power in order to remove IMUS’s offensive speech from the airways, or at least from the national airways. PAD believes this is an inappropriate use of power by an organization of journalists, and I agree. I also feel it is an unwise use of power by a black organization.
5) For a shock jock to make jokes, even bad ones, does not constitute a violation of journalistic ethics comparable to fabricating stories, nor did the NABJ use this strange argument when they called for Imus’s firing.
6) The analogy to the senator you (Jeffrey) present doesn’t work for two reasons.
a) The story you present doesn’t make sense: it is not clear if your hypothetical senator was voted out as a result of your campaigning or impeached and convicted. In the first case he would have been fired by his electorate — the voters. In the second he would have lost his job for committing a crime (assuming elected officials are not impeached for being disliked).
b) The analogy to a senator doesn’t fit. An elected official and a radio host are two very different things. and even if we tried to make the analogy fit it doesn’t work. Imus was not fired for committing an ‘impeachable’ crime. PAD touched on this point in a way when he said that Imus did not violate the FCC regulations. Nor was he ‘voted out’ by his electorate, namely the listeners. He was fired by his network — which has no equivalent in the senator analogy.
Now, it had long been argued on this thread that the network has the right to fire him (which is a subject for another discussion). But PAD’s criticism was not about that. His criticism was directed at a journalistic organization because:
a) They called for the firing of a fellow journalist by the network — in effect reducing his abiility to speak — thus not abiding by the ideals of free speech that PAD believes they should hold.
b) They — he claims — were able to use their power to actually and effectively pressure the network to fire Imus, thus moving from speech to an actual attack on his ability to speak (and work).
Beyond that we seem to be going around in circles: the NABJ are within their right to say what they want, but in doing so they fell short of ideals of free speech which, it is PAD’s opinion, they should be committed to as journalists. That’s his opinion, which is also shared by others. Agree with it or disagree as you will. It is that simple.
Jeffrey Frawley: I suspect that identifying your own posts with his persona makes you feel a bit more invulnerable to criticism.
Luigi Novi: When have I ever identified my posts with his persona?
Jeffrey Frawley: In that quote, you made quite a big deal of the significance of the word “Journalists” in “The National Association of Black Journalists.” A completely parallel argument could be made for the significance of the word “Black.” I don’t think it would be for the best for the association to parse all issues exclusively in terms of “Black,” but I can’t expect that aspect to be ignored, either. There is no magic in the words: It’s a collection of black journalists which expresses the will of the membership. They have taken no oath to join an ascetic brotherhood; They are adult men and women who decided they hated Imus’s guts.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what they decided. They decided to persecute him, to get him fired for something offensive he said, even after he apologized for it, and in so doing, had him punished for expressing his First Amendment rights—something with exists at the fundamental core of their profession. If any of its members tried this in a capacity other than representing that organization, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. But journalism requires near-unfettered freedom of expression. For journalists to think that doing what they did was in the best spirit of journalism was nothing short of debaucherous.
Jeffrey Frawley: I don’t know what your profession is, or with what group you identify yourself, but it wouldn’t amaze me if you formed some of your opinions on your own, rather than regurgitating the boilerplate of the group.
Luigi Novi: Thank you. I appreciate the compliment, inasmuch as I’ve done this many times on this blog.
Impeachment is bringing an elected official to trial in order to determine whether to remove him from office. Conviction (in this case) is a finding that he should be removed: Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, but neither was convicted; Richard Nixon was neither impeached nor convicted, but resigned before either could happen. My analogy may have been too inexact – you are probably right about that. As to Imus’s firing, I don’t believe it was ever possible for NABJ to get rid of him without other factors contributing: NABJ does not own the broadcaster or have any authority over it beyond persuasion. If the broadcasters had believed there was more money in keeping him than firing him, we’d be hearing him every morning.
The whole black thing came up only because Luigi Novi found a magical talisman in the power of the word “Journalists” – If you designate yourself a journalist, journalistic interests must surely be your lifeblood. Therre are actually six words in the name of the organization:
“The” – They are “The” – no problem there!
“National” – It looks as if they really are national.
“Association” – It looks just like an association.
“of” – They do consist of something, so “of” is OK.
“Black” – It’s awfully likely they are, and consider themselves, black. Perhaps they think it is important.
“Journalists” – They are journalists, whether or not anyone here likes their priorities.
The words are all right there. Choosing Journalists as the only word that designates the membership is arbitrary. The members don’t want any advice on journalistic ethics, and don’t need any on being black. Let’s agree on “The”, “National”, “Association” and “of” being accurate.
“I mustn’t put words into his mouth, but I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt. Lewd or threatening comments about close family members, for example, might make him for once value the free press less than family love.”
I’ve been totally up front with the notion that I don’t allow people to trash talk my family on my blog. That is a simple courtesy I ask for in what is essentially my house. But if, for example, some guy was being a total jerk about my family over on Newsarama, I wouldn’t be lobbying Matt Brady to ban the poster.
“On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict.”
That’s only because you’re bothering to talk to him. Slowly most people are coming around to the point of view that I long-ago realized: There’s no point. Mike is literally in a world of his own, where people refute the things he says up one side and down the other and he pretends that they haven’t.
PAD
PAD: Apparently you really are willing to live as you speak on this issue. It would be trollish to bait you on it. I think what I was trying to get at on this was that you treat freedom of speech as an absolute good, overwhelming all other factors. If you are steadfast on that, what can I say? I consider free speech extremely important, but I must not rate it quite so absolutely. As you can easily see, Luigi Novi’s arguments have done nothing to make me see things more your way. “They’re journalists, so every breath is breathed the journalistic way!” is easily attacked with “They’re black, so…” As journalists, yes, they should think hard before endorsing prior restraint, but the assumption that they are their jobs first and their ethnicity second is something that must vary for each person. What you KNOW is most important may not be what someone else KNOWS. Even this far along in American history, it isn’t unexpected that some would react viscerally and autonomically to really crude race baiting – even though some are initiate in the priesthood of journalism.
Jeffrey, having given up on the notion that PAD was trying to restrict freedom of speech, and that he was being a hypocrite, you now decided to latch onto another absurdity of an almost Mike-ish level, and start analyzing the name of the NABJ.
“What you KNOW is most important may not be what someone else KNOWS.”
This is not about knowledge or about other principles or about analyzing the name of the organization.
Obviously the members of the NABJ reacted viserally as blacks to Imus statements. It is PAD’s opinion that, as journalists (and they do not stop being journalists or the members of a journalistic organization by virtue of being black or angry ), it would have been appropriate for them to adhere to the principle of free speech to its fullest (although it seems to me that he holds non-journalists to that ideal too). He doesn’t expect them to hold only to that ideal, but in this case his opinion is that they should have prefered the ideal of free speech to the viceral reaction (and it is a viceral reaction not a ‘black’reaction) — because this is basically the idea of free speech: to defend the right of people to say even things one finds disgusting. This is his opinion, period. If you think that they should not adhere to that ideal, that’s your opinion. You may articulate the other principles which you believe supercede the ideal of free speech, according to which you think the NABJ should act. And we can then discuss that.
If you agree with PAD that they should have adhered to this ideal, but you sympathize with their emotional reaction, that’s fine too. We can discuss that. I don’t know if PAD is being insensitive to their viceral reaction. But in any case it would seem his view — that they should have prefered the ideal to the viceral reaction –would have remained the same.
It’s that simple and does not require all these
games and this silly discussion on whether the NABJ is more journalistic or more black, and absurd statements like: “the priesthood of journalism.” Get to the point of your point of view or drop the issue, but if we are going to discuss something let it be the real issue and not language games and hyperbolies.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 05:01 PM
I think PAD’s grasp of such things is quite a bit better than Luigi Novi’s.
Ah. I see. You’ve stopped reflexively attacking Peter for a moment, so you need another target. It seems I was too quick to compliment you.
Luigi’s one of the most civil, reasonable, and intelligent posters here. If you can’t debate him without resorting to snarkiness (and it seems that you cannot), you must be doing something wrong.
You’ve validated my initial negative opinion of you. I’m therefore disengaging, because life’s too short. I encourage others to do the same.
I know how trolls’ minds work: you will likely tell me that my failure to refute your “points” is “proof” that I can’t. Whatever. You’re a waste of time. ‘Bye.
Posted by: Micha at May 14, 2007 08:26 PM
Get to the point of your point of view or drop the issue, but if we are going to discuss something let it be the real issue and not language games and hyperbolies.
Amen, Micha!
I’ll let that be my last word in this post, which is getting frighteningly long.
Micha: By “KNOWS” I meant that which one is certain is obvious. Different people KNOW different things. Since we all just adore free speech so very much – sorry – but I don’t need your permission to say whatever I want.
Bill Myers: The fact that you think Luigi Novi is a marvelous fellow doesn’t really make any difference. If I tell you otherwise does it blast your opinion out of the water? I suspect not, so why do you think your opinion is different? Of course, vowing to disengage is really setting yourself up if you should change your mind: I’ve fallen into that myself. Perhaps you should be wiser.
Luigi Novi: I think you give the NABJ too much credit for firing Imus. He didn’t work for them, and neither do his former employers. Isn’t it far more likely that his employers thought he was just more trouble and of less value than they wanted? If an offended group isn’t permitted to air its views and call for any goal which is legal, just what do you mean when you say you like free speech?
Luigi Novi was the one who insisted that because the NABJ acronym includes “Journalists” it must conduct itself as and believe what he feels journalists should. Of course it’s ridiculous to parse the other five words; It’s also ridiculous to latch onto the one. Free speech includes the right to say stupid things and work against what others think is one’s best interests. Why should anyone here think he should take that out of NABJ’s hands? Please think carefully before you say the NABJ can’t be trusted to look out for itself. That kind of paternalism isn’t needed.
No.
Peter could simply acknowledge that journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech, and acknowledge his need to rephrase his criticism so that it’s compatible with that simple truth — but he refuses. I’m only left to imagine he doesn’t have enough faith in his position to free it from an obvious inconsistency.
Peter could simply say he doesn’t have the time to liberate his criticism of the NABJ from the obviously wrong notion that journalistic integrity depends on unconditional free speech, and that he invokes his right to keep his opinion in spite of reason siding against the argument he has presented — I think we all know Peter is the busiest person who frequents his comments sections — but again, he refuses. I’m only left to imagine Peter’s faith in his own authenticity is too fragile for the practice of such flexibility to be anything but devastating.
I live in a world where establishing a metaphor with the word “literally” is literally wrong.
Ohm, this is really a waste of time. You persist with these pointless games. If you KNOW something say it, if you have an OPINION, say it. You are exactly like Mike, just playing around. with words, strawmen and things that exist only in your imagination, and you perceive yourself to be the great defender of the downtrodden NABJ. At least Mike is entertaining (sometimes). You don’t need my permission to say whatever nonsense pleases you. But if you want to have a conversation with me about this issue, you’ll have to start talking to the point. If not than you can talk with yourself or Mike.
Mike, I understand why you think like you do: you’re an idiot. We both have to accept that. You simply are incapable of doing or understanding anything else. It’s a disability. Even if I were to say to you that Peter’s criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depends on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, your mind wont be able to comprehend it because you are an idiot. You are incapable of arguing with PAD’s rather simple point of view so you had to construct your own argument that is binary enough for your mind to deal with. I accept that, enjoy it.
If you were to say that Peter’s criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depend on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, you would be wrong.
Jeffrey Frawley: The whole black thing came up only because Luigi Novi found a magical talisman in the power of the word “Journalists” – If you designate yourself a journalist, journalistic interests must surely be your lifeblood. Therre are actually six words in the name of the organization…The words are all right there. Choosing Journalists as the only word that designates the membership is arbitrary.
Luigi Novi: I already responded to this point. The organization is an association of journalists. Therefore, any time they take some type of public position or action as a group, they are making a statement that what they’re doing is in the best interests of journalism. All the words before that are just qualifiers: It doesn’t matter if they’re Irish journalists, left-handed journalists, red with yellow polka dot journalists, black-leather-s&m-outfit-wearing journalists, or whatever. And in my opinion, persecuting a guy for insulting someone, even after he has apologized, and in general, trying to stifle offensive speech by getting the speaker fired, is not only not in the best interests of journalism, but antithetical to it.
If say, John X, a member of the NABJ, wanted to speak out, he could’ve done so as a private citizen. Or as a member of the NAACP. I would still have disagreed with the call to have Imus fired in light of his apology, but I would not have opined that doing so was a betrayal of John X’s occupational principles. If an organization dedicated to the welfare of black women, or black athletes, or female black athletes (since that’s who Imus insulted, not journalists) spoke out against him, ditto. Or, if Imus’ crime had been one that was relevant and detrimental to jouranlism (faking a photo or a story, not protecting a source, plagiarism), that would’ve perfectly justified the NABJ in advocating his firing.
Jeffrey Frawley: The members don’t want any advice on journalistic ethics, and don’t need any on being black.
Luigi Novi: Nor have I provided any. I merely expressed an opinion on their actions.
Jeffrey Frawley: PAD: Apparently you really are willing to live as you speak on this issue. It would be trollish to bait you on it. I think what I was trying to get at on this was that you treat freedom of speech as an absolute good, overwhelming all other factors. If you are steadfast on that, what can I say? I consider free speech extremely important, but I must not rate it quite so absolutely. As you can easily see, Luigi Novi’s arguments have done nothing to make me see things more your way. “They’re journalists, so every breath is breathed the journalistic way!”
Luigi Novi: I have not expressed this opinion, for the simple reason that I don’t share it. That free expression—or any right or principle, for the matter—is somehow absolute, is an idea of your own invention. It is not one I have either stated or implied, nor do I ever recall Peter doing so either.
Jeffrey Frawley: As journalists, yes, they should think hard before endorsing prior restraint, but the assumption that they are their jobs first and their ethnicity second is something that must vary for each person.
Luigi Novi: I haven’t made any such assumption, and I explained this above. They are journalists when they are speaking in their capacity as members of an association of journalists. If they want to speak as black men, then they shouldn’t do so while representing an occupation that not only bears no relevance on that, but that is damaged by the solution that they propose. If I happen to be a member of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, do I represent that organization when I speak my mind on a totally unrelated issue, like say, abortion? If I’m an illustrator who works for Joe Schmoe Comics, do I represent that company when I speak my mind on the issue of legalizing marijuana?
Jeffrey Frawley: Luigi Novi: I think you give the NABJ too much credit for firing Imus. He didn’t work for them, and neither do his former employers. Isn’t it far more likely that his employers thought he was just more trouble and of less value than they wanted?
Luigi Novi: Sure. And on what basis did he become “trouble”?
Simple.
The people and organizations that put pressure on his employers by calling for his firing.
Among them, the NABJ.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Jeffrey Frawley: If an offended group isn’t permitted to air its views and call for any goal which is legal, just what do you mean when you say you like free speech?
Luigi Novi: No one suggesting that a group not be “permitted” to air its views or call for a given goal. You simply don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between honoring a person’s right to do this, and disagreeing with the content. If I wrote to my Congressman, and said, “Sir, I want you to introduce a bill that will ‘trim a little fat’ off the Constitution, so that journalism organizations are not legally allowed to call for the firing of someone they don’t like,” then this accusation would have merit.
Jeffrey Frawley: Free speech includes the right to say stupid things and work against what others think is one’s best interests. Why should anyone here think he should take that out of NABJ’s hands?
Luigi Novi: As soon as you can show me where I suggested any such thing, feel free to quote that post.
But since you chickened out of answering me when I asked you in my last post for an example of where I identified my posts with Peter’s persona, which you accused me of in your May 14, 5:01pm post, I’m guessing that this will go unanswered as well.
Luigi, when I disagreed with many things you (not PAD) said, your responses accused me of misunderstanding what PAD was trying to say. It’s not any more complicated than that.
I’d say that Imus became trouble for his employers when the crassness of his statements was publicized. Certainly NABJ wanted him out, and certainly it publicized his stupidity: So what? By your reasoning, the Washington Post and the New York Times were wrong to publicize Watergate. (After all, if no one had known about it Nixon’s popularity would have remained much higher.) To say “NABJ consists of journalists; I know what is best for journalists – defense of all free speech; NABJ didn’t do what I said it should: NABJ was wrong to not let free speech concerns decide its position” is definitely quite absolutist. It presumes that free speech as an issue must always trump other interests. It is very defensible to say you think they were wrong; It is not defensible to say they can only be right to do things as you decide.