[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ann Coulter is dangerous.

She's contributing to discourse in this country going down the shitter. Mind you, she is far from the only contributor to this problem, so she certainly isn't single-handedly destroying anything, but she's a definitely a part of it, as is Fox News.

Of course! They are expressing non-liberal opinions!

Those in power benefit from a dumb electorate, it makes as more manipulable and susceptible to political theater.

This certainly explains why the elderly and college students are so overwhelmingly Democrat voters.







Yeah yeah, go ahead and attack me over the elderly thing, you know I'm right!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by driven 

I have yet to see obama say anything of substance. He's all with "Let's make changes" (how?) "Let's all feel good with hope" ... I've watched him speak many times, but I don't get the JFK or MLK chills that all his people tell me are there.

There are separate mediums for that. Such as barackobama.com
All one has time for in an hour or so is meaningless platitudes. You have to go by their voting records (which I admit in his case is a little tricky) and by their stated platform. He's got a lot of ideas. I may not agree with them, but there are many and pretty well-defined.

[peeb]

I don't think it is the fact that Ann Coulter is expressing 'non-liberal opinions' that Besson is complaining about - she is contributing to the destruction of meaningful debate by encouraging a discourse that is really just caustic abuse without any real content. Listening to her is the political equivalent of wandering into a debating club and drowning everyone out shouting 'YOU SUCK'.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

she is contributing to the destruction of meaningful debate by encouraging a discourse that is really just caustic abuse without any real content. Listening to her is the political equivalent of wandering into a debating club and drowning everyone out shouting 'YOU SUCK'.

So people need to step up to the plate and learn how to debate her properly.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that you have essentially wandered in here and in a calm, collected voice have declared "SHE SUCKS".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't think it is the fact that Ann Coulter is expressing 'non-liberal opinions' that Besson is complaining about - she is contributing to the destruction of meaningful debate by encouraging a discourse that is really just caustic abuse without any real content. Listening to her is the political equivalent of wandering into a debating club and drowning everyone out shouting 'YOU SUCK'.

Funny you should say that. It seems every time a right of center person is invited to speak on campus they are shouted down by "free speech loving" left of center "students".

[Ghoser777]

As Rush Limbaugh would say, you have a freedom to speak, not a freedom to be heard.

[vmarks]

Sure enough, but you also can show some maturity and politeness - Freedom of speech does not give you the right to disrupt an invited speaker without repercussion - and it doesn't grant you the right to become violent with that speaker or his audience.

Jim Gilchrist (founder of the minutemen that voluntarily monitored the US' southern border) spoke at Columbia University. He was attacked on stage by students who felt that he had no right to speak. At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder - October 5, 2006 - The New York Sun

That's the same Columbia that invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and whose students were upset that the University president dare challenge Ahmadinejad.

Or, the students at UC Irvine who refused to let invited speaker Daniel Pipes get a word in. Hot Air � Blog Archive � Video: Daniel Pipes silenced by crowd, responds on H&C shows some of the disruption.

Just because you may have the freedom to speak doesn't mean you should act badly. Just because no one wants to give you an audience to hear your speech doesn't mean you are entitled to hijack an invited speaker's audience.

This is the same bad behavior that Bill Clinton was faced with and had to interrupt his speech to address here, where he shuts down a "the government did 9/11" truther in Minnesota:
LiveLeak.com - Bill Clinton Takes On 9/11 Conspiracy Protesters
and he had to do it again in Denver:
YouTube - Clinton Confronts Heckler over 9/11 Conspiracy

I do like it when Mr. Clinton recognizes that the terrorists who killed our citizens are continuing to do so all around the world. It acts as good informed counterpoint to peeb's notion that there are no terrorists in Iraq.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Of course! They are expressing non-liberal opinions!



This certainly explains why the elderly and college students are so overwhelmingly Democrat voters.







Yeah yeah, go ahead and attack me over the elderly thing, you know I'm right!

Your response fuels my argument quite nicely, thank you.

Hint: my post wasn't intended to be partisan.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't think it is the fact that Ann Coulter is expressing 'non-liberal opinions' that Besson is complaining about - she is contributing to the destruction of meaningful debate by encouraging a discourse that is really just caustic abuse without any real content. Listening to her is the political equivalent of wandering into a debating club and drowning everyone out shouting 'YOU SUCK'.

Exactly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

So people need to step up to the plate and learn how to debate her properly.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that you have essentially wandered in here and in a calm, collected voice have declared "SHE SUCKS".

The problem isn't debating her, it's easy to blow her positions out of the water - any rational mind can do that.

The problem is in getting the media to stop using people like her to sell, and in setting the tone of our discourse by happily providing her a medium.

It's kind of like trying to talk/teach about sane family life while featuring the typical guests from Jerry Springer's show in discussion.

Well, maybe my analog is off, but I'm leaving it in anyway because I rather like it! So there!

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem is in getting the media to stop using people like her to sell

I've got to stop this food from getting me fat!

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem isn't debating her, it's easy to blow her positions out of the water - any rational mind can do that.

Well, if rational minds are constantly blowing her out of the water, perhaps there is a certain je ne sais quoi these rational minds are missing.

Being right doesn't count for **** if your audience isn't listening to you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, if rational minds are constantly blowing her out of the water, perhaps there is a certain je ne sais quoi these rational minds are missing.

Being right doesn't count for **** if your audience isn't listening to you.

Yeah, and the only way you can get audiences to listen to you is if you say what you are saying the loudest. It must be right because that person said it loudly, right?

I realize that (in response to your last post), getting this to stop is indeed a tall order. All I'm saying is that this sort of thing *does* have a corrosive effect on our society.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I realize that (in response to your last post), getting this to stop is indeed a tall order.

I love it when the true totalitarian mindset of many on the left is exposed like this.

The only way of "getting this to stop" IE: getting people to not express opinions you don't agree with, is with force and a totalitarian regime behind that force. (By the way, that's always done in the name of "curing" something that some busybody *ahem* has decidied is corrosive to their vision of what society is supposed to be, and always done by people who think it's a GOOD thing. Look up virtually every totalitarian regime in history for examples).

It's not going to happen so long as we live in a free country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I love it when the true totalitarian mindset of many on the left is exposed like this.

The only way of "getting this to stop" IE: getting people to not express opinions you don't agree with, is with force and a totalitarian regime behind that force. (By the way, that's always done in the name of "curing" something that some busybody *ahem* has decidied is corrosive to their vision of what society is supposed to be, and always done by people who think it's a GOOD thing. Look up virtually every totalitarian regime in history for examples).

It's not going to happen so long as we live in a free country.

WTF??

You should have went with "I like pickles", it would have made a little more sense and would have been funnier.

[Ghoser777]

I totally agree vmarks.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I realize that (in response to your last post), getting this to stop is indeed a tall order. All I'm saying is that this sort of thing *does* have a corrosive effect on our society.

It has less of a corrosive effect than getting her to stop, unless the way you get her to stop is to be more interesting.

That is the only acceptable way to get her to stop.

If that's what you mean, then this is merely a semantic dispute.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It has less of a corrosive effect than getting her to stop, unless the way you get her to stop is to be more interesting.

That is the only acceptable way to get her to stop.

If that's what you mean, then this is merely a semantic dispute.

My point is that the media are failing in being responsible journalists and watchdogs, but I realize that this is neither new nor profound.

I don't think that Ann Coulter should be silenced for cashing in on this, she should be able to speak, I don't really have a problem with her. I question her moral character, like I would question somebody making money finding loopholes in a system in a way that hurts others, but at the end of the day I don't really care about her, I can just ignore her.

However, the net effect of people like her working in collaboration with the media *is* corrosive to our society. She is partly to blame. That was my point.

And before I attract more slobbering knee-jerk Republicans in here that want to accuse me of being Marxist or something, you'll notice that I've never condoned the leftist equivalents of Ann Coulter. This is *not* a partisan issue, this is about productive discourse, responsible journalism, sensationalism vs. substantive information, etc.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, the net effect of people like her working in collaboration with the media *is* corrosive to our society. She is partly to blame. That was my point.

Straight out of the totalitarian wanna-be handbook.

This is *not* a partisan issue, this is about productive discourse, responsible journalism, sensationalism vs. substantive information, etc.

None of which is up to YOU to decide, other than for yourself, and yourself only. The problem of course, is that you don't know or have enough if any historic perspective on anything, in order to know when you're expressing totalitarian ideals. Because of that, you think declaring people "dangerous" and pretending you have some authority on what political opinions are "corrosive to society" is something new that you thought of. But a lot of control-freaks before you already have already thought of it, and unfortunately a few have actually had the power to carry it out.

[besson3c]

Whatever Crash, I don't really care whether you think I'm totalitarian, nor do I really feel like dissecting your knee jerk nonsense.

Just out of curiosity though, what do *you* think is responsible journalism? What is the role of journalists and the media in society? What *should* the role be? Why do we have a news media? Is it to entertain us? Inform us?

Do you believe in the constitution? Do you believe in keeping the government in check? How would you propose we do this if the electorate is poorly misinformed, or not informed at all?

[besson3c]

Also, how would you define journalistic integrity?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your response fuels my argument quite nicely, thank you.

Hint: my post wasn't intended to be partisan.

And your lack of a sense of humor makes its own point as well.

And, you always SAY your not partisan, but yet your posts are frequently and obviously one-sided.

[besson3c]

Are we discussing journalism, or putting me under the microscope? Not interested in the latter, thanks!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And before I attract more slobbering knee-jerk Republicans in here that want to accuse me of being Marxist or something, you'll notice that I've never condoned the leftist equivalents of Ann Coulter. This is *not* a partisan issue, this is about productive discourse, responsible journalism, sensationalism vs. substantive information, etc.

Yet you always seem to coincidentally choose to attack the ones on the right.

What is more dangerous is to suggest that her and her "collaborators'" rights to free speech are somehow dangerous. If they had some sort of monopoly you may have a point, but they don't. There are a bazillion different means to get news and opinions these days. Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless. It's really not that complicated.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are we discussing journalism, or putting me under the microscope? Not interested in the latter, thanks!

It's kinda hard to take your opinions on journalism seriously when claim objectivity in spite of your glaring one-sidedness.

[besson3c]

The big media houses have a greater journalistic responsibility than the smaller ones, just as it is in most other areas of capitalism and anti-trust regulation. Moreover, the mainstream media should not operate purely from a business standpoint, they have a greater responsibility to fulfill. The same could be said for higher education and many other areas of our society.

Or, are you one of those people that think there should be no regulation, and that unregulated capitalism is an answer to all?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's kinda hard to take your opinions on journalism seriously when claim objectivity in spite of your glaring one-sidedness.

I don't care whether you take my opinions seriously or not. Argue what I'm saying based on its own merits, I really don't care what you think of my character.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The big media houses have a greater journalistic responsibility than the smaller ones, just as it is in most other areas of capitalism and anti-trust regulation. Moreover, the mainstream media should not operate purely from a business standpoint, they have a greater responsibility to fulfill. The same could be said for higher education and many other areas of our society.

Or, are you one of those people that think there should be no regulation, and that unregulated capitalism is an answer to all?

Now we are turning this into an indictment of capitalism as a whole? I thought this was about journalism?

Maybe I'm a little slow but you going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "responsible".

I know it's rather radical, but I don't think that journalists or their employers have a responsibility to stifle free speech. Really. I would love to hear what exactly should be allowed and what exactly you think is so bad about people saying whatever they want.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't care whether you take my opinions seriously or not. Argue what I'm saying based on its own merits, I really don't care what you think of my character.

I was just trying to give you some insight as to why you were being put under the microscope. And, if you really didn't care then you wouldn't be repeatedly trying to show how neutral you are.

[driven]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are separate mediums for that. Such as Welcome to Obama for America
All one has time for in an hour or so is meaningless platitudes. You have to go by their voting records (which I admit in his case is a little tricky) and by their stated platform. He's got a lot of ideas. I may not agree with them, but there are many and pretty well-defined.

That web-site makes my point. Lot's of high-end pie-in-the-sky topics ... not a single low-level detail, and very little mentioned about how any of it is going to be paid for. (Which makes me think of the obvious ... more taxes.)

[besson3c]

I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about what I'm saying, and how this came to be an attack on free speech *sigh*

I think you should reread what I wrote.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about what I'm saying, and how this came to be an attack on free speech *sigh* I think you should reread what I wrote.

Ann Coulter is dangerous.

Is she bombing abortion clinics? No. Is she firing on your house? No. Storming Pennsylvania Ave? No. Why is she dangerous? Because she says things you don't like. Her, others unnamed and of course Fox News. (no fashionable critique of right-wing ideology would be complete without including a news affiliate that happens to showcase one voice on the right).

Stating someone is "dangerous" is the first step to trying to shut them down. This is the kind of zeal that leads to silly ideals like the fairness doctrine.

This degree of intolerance is dangerous.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: you too need to reread what I wrote, and put it in context. Don't glaze over the qualifications I made.

[Chongo]

Ann Coulter is no more dangerous than Al Franken and the books he writes

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ann Coulter is no more dangerous than Al Franken and the books he writes

No argument there. In fact, I was thinking of using him as a counter example, although I don't know if he has retired from this sort of thing now that he is running for senate?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No argument there. In fact, I was thinking of using him as a counter example, although I don't know if he has retired from this sort of thing now that he is running for senate?

Not to stray too far OT. I feel sorry for Al. He languished in the trenches at SNL for over 20 years only to watch others who came much later go on to become huge stars. no wonder he is so bitter.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever Crash, I don't really care whether you think I'm totalitarian, nor do I really feel like dissecting your knee jerk nonsense.

Not you personally per se, but the gist of the sentiments are the same as those put forward by totalitarian regimes, usually under the guise of things that sound "good" on the surface (read: easy sells) : "fairness", for the 'better' of the society (as dictated by someone who has no business dictating such things), to silence 'dangerous' people, to set limits on political discourse, to control political opinion, etc.

Just out of curiosity though, what do *you* think is responsible journalism? What is the role of journalists and the media in society? What *should* the role be? Why do we have a news media? Is it to entertain us? Inform us?

First off, Ann Coulter isn't a journalist- she's a commentator/columnist/ pundit/author. She's a private citizen who holds no public office, entitled to have and express whatever views she wants, in whatever way she legally chooses to do so.

Responsible journalism?
Reporting the facts, as they are known, with as little bias -or attempt to create news rather than simply report it- as is humanly possible. Add to that a mix of commentary, opinion, analysis, speculation (all of which by their very nature will have bias added) inserted as editoral.

I also believe in a responsibility of journalists not to reveal current state secrets, ongoing investigation details, witness/undercover identities, and other things that may be facts, but are damaging to reveal. Or purposefully encourage or exacerbate rioting and the like.

The news media always has been a combination of information/entertainment, and that's not a bad thing. People don't stay interested in a dry, lifeless regurgitation of 'facts' by robots. People like to be entertained, even when they're receiving news and information. People also like commentary, opinion and speculation about the subjects of the day. All of those things always have, and always will be a part of the media. It's up to the individual to take it in, and decide for themselves. But it's not up to government or busybody individuals to dictate the content.

Do you believe in the constitution? Do you believe in keeping the government in check? How would you propose we do this if the electorate is poorly misinformed, or not informed at all?

1.Yup.
2.Absolutely.
3. I can only inform myself, and deal with the government by making up my own mind on issues, and make my own voice heard (by government) as much as possible. I also recognize that that's just me, an individual, like most everyone else. Beyond that, I have to organize with other like-minded individuals to petition the government for things we agree on as a group. Others can do the same. Clearly, no guarantees on results.

It's not up to me to decide who else is "poorly informed" or "not informed at all", (many times those very definitions are merely someone's disagreement with another's viewpoint) nor would I ever seek to make it my decision.

To whatever level I judge anyone else's 'being informed' has little to no bearing on my own view of the constitution, or belief in the role of government it outlines.

I do want others to consider issues I also care about (as most any of us here probably do) but that's the extent of it, as ultimately others have to make up their own minds.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about what I'm saying, and how this came to be an attack on free speech *sigh*

I think you should reread what I wrote.

Free speech does not mean giving a platform to every looney with a megaphone. It's the equivalent of of Fox saying "And now, 20 minutes of an angry woman with a megaphone shouting 'shitcock' - after all, if we didn't air this we'd be limiting her free speech!"

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The media is pushing now. Once he has secured the nomination they will turn on him.
He will be:
too old
too angry
Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They'll dub him Captain Queeg


When Bill was running Hilary off limits. The media will mercilessly savage Cindy McCain

As predicted
From the Drudge Report:
NOW THAT HE'S SECURED NOMINATION: NYT DOWNLOADS ON MCCAIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...nt&oref=slogin

[ironknee]

as a mac user, how do you feel about steve jobs/apple using the nytimes as a promo for iphone?

republicans...uh oh....now what?

happy days are here again...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

as a mac user, how do you feel about steve jobs/apple using the nytimes as a promo for iphone?

Using a newspaper to promote a way of getting alternative sources of news wirelessly, delivered in a more convenient format than print? I'm all for it!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Using a newspaper to promote a way of getting alternative sources of news wirelessly, delivered in a more convenient format than print? I'm all for it!

right on! save the trees! save the environment!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

right on! save the trees! save the environment!

If saving the trees and the environment is more convenient, heck yeah!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

as a mac user, how do you feel about steve jobs/apple using the nytimes as a promo for iphone?

As a Mac owner and Apple stock owner, it's great. It was an excellent demonstration of how a cluttered site that attempts to copy its paper format in appearance renders on a small screen, and how Apple overcomes the limitations of that site.

As a conservative, the New York Times is regrettable, but I clearly understand the choice - it's a paper of record (despite Jayson Blair, despite its coddling of terrorists at every opportunity, despite sanitizing their own Wikipedia page, and more.)

How would you have felt if Jobs had chosen the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal for the demonstration? Would it have somehow made you feel less warm towards the device?

It seems to me that it is a silly thing to be upset about. It's a demonstration. It shows the device.

[driven]

Newspapers are so useless. We continue to waste paper when there are clearly much better ways to deliver information. My local paper continues to deliver a free paper to me each morning in spite of 10 years of asking them to stop delivering it. I never have time to read it and it's too big to bring with me. I guess they want that circulation number regardless of anyone actually LOOKS at it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven 

Newspapers are so useless. We continue to waste paper when there are clearly much better ways to deliver information.

Name one.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Name one.

The 18th century called. They want you to come home.

Name one media that's not better than a newspaper. Hell ... you can get online news on your phone now, or a radio, or a podcast ....

Every single alternative media is a better solution than a tree-killing newspaper that perhaps 5% of the readers actually read. (Except for the Sunday coupons which are a bit higher I'm sure.)

[vmarks]

Paper has its place.

It is a human-readable format that can be preserved for centuries, and it requires no fancy mechanisms to be preserved in order to maintain that preservation.

Where will your websites, podcasts, radio, and television shows be in 500 years?

Currently, you've got to maintain spinning magnetic storage media to store anything of volume.
The life of a hard drive is about 3-5 years. The life of a recordable optical disc is about 10 years. The life of a pressed disc is about 20. Even flash drives can suffer bit rot where the data will dissipate if not regularly supplied voltage.

Yet, we've got Lorenzo de Medici's library after all this time.

Maybe the quality of news you get via radio, phone, and podcast are better. I'll grant you that when it comes to the NYT.

But in terms of being a medium that provides a record we can consult centuries into the future, paper is it.

I have 8" floppy diskettes. Where can I read them today? I have a collection of 5.25" drives solely for reading from that media and moving forward to newer media.

Jim's Computer Garage (museum) - Services available from The Computer Garage has set up a small computer museum and offers data recovery services off of antiquated media, like punchcards and punchtape.

Newspaper is simply the superior delivery medium.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Where will your websites, podcasts, radio, and television shows be in 500 years?

Transfered to some newer medium.

This line of argument is a bit simplistic, since today's physical media doesn't have to last 500 years in order for data to hold up that long- data will be transfered as new forms of media come along. I have some data that's as old as the floppy disk age- it just currently resides on something else.

Common newspaper isn't archival quality, so it seems pointless to argue the merits of it over extreme long term vs. common data storage. I think it's fair to say most newspaper- IE: anyone's day to day copies- are seen as temporary, and are thrown away/recycled.

Some archival copies may be kept, but I'd think even microfilm of some nature would be a lot more practical. Some archives of paper media may survive 500 years, but by the same token, so will some archives of digital data, along with devices needed to retrieve the data.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven 

Name one media that's not better than a newspaper. Hell ... you can get online news on your phone now, or a radio, or a podcast ....

I don't figure I have to name one — you just named three for me.

Phone: What? Even people who care about the news are not going to read a full story on a freakin' RAZR.
Radio: Audio-based and strictly linear access starting at a random point.
Podcast: Audio-based and more or less linear access.

Also, two of these use only "pull" distribution models — you have to actively seek them out. None of these are a suitable replacement for a newspaper. Some other things that are not currently suitable replacements for a newspaper: weblogs, television (if you've ever seen TV news, you know this) and email.

I wish there were a good replacement for newspaper, because newspapers are dying, but there isn't any.