The article she tried to post along with it: Townhall.com::The Imus Lynch Party::By Patrick J. Buchanan was great. Where Buchanan is talking about Imus, I agree with much of what he says. I even agree that Imus' being fired for using the same words in very similar ways that others have and continue to do is hypocritical. I don't think Imus deserved to be fired.
But the idea that the people who wrote & called & threatened boycotts about his words were some kinda lynch mob, or that doing these things is any kind of censorship or free speech issue, is patently ridiculous. So, I set out to find out the basis by which folks were making these claims.
I didn't get much from Skye. If you read the comment section where she & I discussed it, her argument seemed to come down to:
1) "I say it is the public display of unbalanced 'morality' in the American stage that inflicts far more damage to our credibility as a nation and a culture."
In other words, anyone who was offended by Imus should've just kept quiet. Unless you've complained about all instances where anyone may've been offended--especially ones committed by those you support--you have no standing to complain about this one. The world is watching, & you're making us look bad. There was a time when I didn't really understand the concepts of moral relativism & moral equivalency. But I'm starting to...
2) "Using economic forces as a weapon to supress the freedom of speech was a tactic employeed by the German Socialist Workers Party back in the day. We are close, to repeating this brutal mistake which apparently has the full blessing of US liberals."
The difference between individuals, like the ones who did the complaining, & political parties, like the Nazis, seems to escape her. Besides, using the power of the purse to encourage one kind of behavior over another is a tactic employed by individuals, groups, and governments all the time. Everything from picking a certain brand of dish soap, to only buying American, to not shopping at Mal-Wart, is an attempt to affect the behavior of those companies. And the US government has been known to use funding to affect the values of our country, as well.
That was about the extent of it... (at least so far. As of this writing, I was he last one to've commented at her blog. Perhaps Skye will have more to say, & will offer another reason or something.) Not much to explain how or why it's a free speech issue.
So, I moved on, and that's how I got to Mike's America, and his post on the issue: Democrats Announce Media "Enemies List".
Mike says "The lovers of free speech, diversity and tolerance are at it again!" Well, my question is "How is asking for a certain level of behavior an offense to free speech, diversity, or tolerance?"
Like Skye above, Mike's main argument seems to be one of balance. If you don't object to EVERYONE who may be offensive--but especially those to whom you're closest--you shouldn't object to ANYONE who may be offensive.
"Taken out of context and overblown to shock the easily offended sensibilities of self righteous,left wing hyprocritical poseurs bigots who couldn't care less when much much worse is directed at anyone not in one of their protected classes of people. I say: you want to change the culture and clean things up? Fine by me. Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others."
Leaving aside all the unnecessary (mis)characterizations, Mike's "glass houses" argument isn't persuasive. You start where you start. Whatever one thinks of Imus or the people on Media Matters so-called "enemies list", the issue is current, and these are the people, along with rap artists & comedians, who say the things that some people question.
Is there a political or social element? Sure. Folks who like the rap in question obviously aren't offended by it. If you enjoy or agree with Coulter's friendly little barbs, why would you complain about 'em? But that doesn't mean that others are not offended, & don't have every ethical right to voice their opinions to the people in a position to make changes; the artists, the people for whom they work (labels, stations) & anyone else involved in getting the art from the artist to the public (advertisers, stores)
Let's see whether there's any more in Mike's arsenal:
"I'd like to know when Media Matters will complain about ANY left wing fascist?"
Media Matters is a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
It's very much like NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias or Media Research Center Home Page: America's Media Watchdog, who currently has a banner saying "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".
The answer is, MM won't complain about any left wing "misinformation," because that isn't their reason for being, any more than NewsBusters or MRC will complain about right wing "misinformation." If you want a more balanced approach, look to omnibudsmen, or perhaps the American public at large. Fairness to all sides isn't the mission of any of these websites, nor should it be.
When I asked Mike about it in the comment section for his post, this was his reply:
"Who commenting here has defended Don Imus? He's one of yours, not ours."
Very interesting, particularly in light of his previous comment (also from the comment section, but not to me) about MM never complaining about anyone on the left... So, if MM had anything to do with Imus' downfall (like being among the first on the net to highlight his comments, perhaps), that would mean MM HAS complained about some (or at least "someone") on the left. (I didn't catch that, till just now...)
That was pretty much our whole conversation about Imus, MM "enemies," and free speech, though in that post of Mike's & a bunch of others between us in that comment section, we addressed other topics. My one other attempt to broach the subject was brushed away by his saying "I responded to your query about Imus. Sorry if my interest in that is less than yours.", almost as though *I* brought it up, and wasn't in the comment section of *HIS* blog posting on the subject, replying to the words he wrote. (I actually checked to make sure I didn't accidentally post my query in the wrong comment section. I hadn't.)
And that, dear readers, is the story of how/why I got to Mike's in the first place, and the beginning of the path to the creation of this blog...
.gif)
3 comments:
I often forget that not everyone has had the benefit of an education in political philosophy as I have.
So when I read statements like "How is asking for a certain level of behavior an offense to free speech" I need to keep that in mind.
First of all, only political speech is protected by the Constitution. As far as the rest, anything goes.
If people want to boycott or change the channel it's their right.
But that's not the problem here. The problem is that a select group of persons has now decided what speech is permissible and what is not.
That is what Skye means with the comparison to facism.
Who decides what is right or wrong? Do you? And if you do, are you permitted to impose your values on me?
I'm sure you'll just wiffle and waffle all over that one rather than face up to the heart of the issue. A tactic which I find very annoying so henceforth it is banned.
"I often forget that not everyone has had the benefit of an education in political philosophy as I have."
That'd be considered elitist, had I said it...
"First of all, only political speech is protected by the Constitution. As far as the rest, anything goes."
So anything Imus or those MM "enemies" said wouldn't be covered under free speech, then... That's what I'm saying, too.
But that doesn't explain why Mike said "The lovers of free speech... ...are at it again."
"If people want to boycott or change the channel it's their right. But that's not the problem here. The problem is that a select group of persons has now decided what speech is permissible and what is not."
I'm not sure I understand... It's alright to boycott, but only if each person does so on his/her own, rather than it being an organised campaign?
Is the problem that it was MediaMatters, followed by Sharpton & Jackson, that publicised the incident enough that a critical mass of the populus, all working against Imus, forced his employers to let him go?
Groups of people make decisions like this everyday. (Well, often, anyway.) We call them Congress. We call them the FCC. We call them the Neilsons. We call them film critics. In fact, as in this case, we call them a significant portion of the American people.
"That is what Skye means with the comparison to facism."
Perhaps one of you would be so kind as to explain who the fascists are, in this case. MediaMatters? Sharpton? MSNBC & CBS Radio? THe people who wrote the letters & made the phone calls?
Why?
"Who decides what is right or wrong? Do you? And if you do, are you permitted to impose your values on me?"
We all do. Something offends you, you make a phone call to the people responsible. Then, you post about it on your blog, and ask your readers to do the same. (& even if you don't specifically ask, you can be assured some will.) And a groundswell grows. To the extent that the quantity & ferociocity of complaints matters to the artist, the station, & the sponsors, something happens. (The person who offended you apologizes, gets suspended, gets fired...).
Fortunately or unfortunately, there are no hard & fast rules. Chris Rock can say things Imus can't, apparently. (Hell the Imus of several years ago could say things the Imus of today could not.) Standards are fluid. It's like that definition of obscenity. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." (& that's a LEGAL opinion.)
I had no problem being seeing Janet Jackson's nipple. Didn't offend me, in the least. But it bothered a whole lotta other people. I might ask why the FCC gets to decide that's too offensive for TV.
Then there was the Reagan docudrama, where the question was it's level of truthiness. Hannity complained, Rush complained, Media Research Council complained, and of course many of their viewers, listeners, and readers did, as well. What right did they have to decide that I couldn't watch a docudrama about President Reagan on broadcast TV, because THEY thought there was too much drama, & not enough documentary? Why impose their values on me?
The answer is, there were enough people to make the difference to the sponsors & the station. If it was you and twelve other Con bloggers, that Reagan doc would've been on my tv. Bottom line, the vocal mob rules, I guess. Too small a mob, or too quiet, you get nothin'
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
"I'm sure you'll just wiffle and waffle all over that one rather than face up to the heart of the issue."
You sure have said this to me a lot. I sure wish you'd give me an example of what you mean by it...
"A tactic which I find very annoying so henceforth it is banned."
I don't know what that means, for sure... ...but if it means you're not going to allow me to post on your blog, anymore, I'm sorry you feel that way...(I thought even you'd find me far more reasonable than Mr. Hoop, honestly.) I guess I'll find out next time I'm there...
If that turns out to be the case, it was interesting, while it lasted... Though you may not believe me, I wish you well...
For any who read this later, I'll let you know what happens (or "happened," I guess), either way...
Not banned on Mike's blog... (at least not so far...). I've posted a few things there since, both yesterday & this morning, INCLUDING more on this subject & related media issues. Guess he found his level of interest piqued...
(That really wasn't my intent. This original post is for the readers of this blog. I posted a link on his, 'cause I didn't think it right to talk about him or his ideas without giving him the opportunity to respond. I intend to do that whenever I take on another blogger's words & thoughts. I'm actually surprised--& pleased--that Mike replied, in fact...)
Hopefully, blocking me from posting on his site was never what he meant by "henceforth it is banned" in the first place.
Should anything change, I'll report back...
Post a Comment