[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News Touts Doubt and Dissent]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 18:56, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

*snip*

> > "Tiny fraction?" Last I checked, polls were indicating at least 30
> > percent of the population thinks we're doing the wrong thing - that's a
> > "tiny fraction?" I pity anyone taking guidance from people who don't
> > recognize 30 percent of the population as a significant portion. 
> 
> Then that would be yourself.  In a prior discussion, you seem to have
> thought 33% was low enough to dismiss on another issue:

I didn't say they were a "tiny fraction" I said they were "outside the
mainstream." I recognize that 1/3rd the population isn't a "tiny
fraction." I stand by that - I do think that the pro-lifers who oppose
abortion for everyone are outside the mainstream. 

I would also agree that people who are strongly anti-war are also
outside the mainstream right now. That doesn't make them a "tiny
fraction" it just means that the majority of people disagree. 

> That was written by you, and you used this as an argument for the media NOT
> to seek out the anti-abortion crowd when discussing the issue. If we are
> going to have a cutoff point where it's okay for the media to dismiss
> certain people because they are "out of the mainstream" (apparently your
> definition of which is 1/3 or lower), shouldn't it apply to all topics,
> then? 

You're mixing apples and oranges here, but I'll bite anyway.

The original discussion about abortion was this: Taking the media to
task for not specifically seeking out anti-abortion/pro-life opinions
when they report on the issue. I never said that the media shouldn't be
allowed to interview pro-lifers - I'm saying that it shouldn't be
mandatory for a reporter to have to find someone willing to go on camera
as a pro-lifer if they do a story on abortion. 

This discussion is about a conservative group taking someone to task for
recognizing the anti-war viewpoint. 

Part of my attitude might be due to the fact I'm fed up with people
bitching about what isn't covered in stories that I write. I don't cover
abortion or whatever...but if I write a story about MySQL, someone
bitches that I didn't mention PostgreSQL. If I write a story about
project XX I get a slew of e-mails asking why I didn't cover project YY
instead. 

> Personally, I WANT to hear from the anti-war people, especially if
> they have something meaningful to say, and I don't think any entity is
> preventing them from getting their say - their message seems to be getting
> out.  Same with pro-war people. I don't want to see and hear slogans from
> either side, I want to see informed debate[*] - from both sides, on all issues
> - in a perfect world.
>  
> > Unlike the right-wingers, I don't have a problem with people exercising
> > free speech ....
> 
> I guess right-wingers do have a problem with free speech, if free speech
> involves stealing newspapers:
> 
> http://www.loudcitizen.com/Commentary/JC/freespeech.asp

Okay, first of all: This incident is two years old. 

Second, it happened on a college campus - and I'm sure we could go back
and forth all day with incidents of general stupidity on both sides that
occur on college campuses. 

Third, it was wrong, I won't dispute that... but I think you're getting
desperate if you have to resort to an example that's two years old that
happened at a college campus. 

> I haven't seen conservatives stealing the New York Times lately. And
> O'Reilly and Limbaugh have power over what goes on their show, and power
> over little else. And neither show presents itself as news - they are both
> obviously entertainment. 

I can't speak much on O'Reilly, and I'll agree that one would be sorely
mistaken to interpret Limbaugh as anything other than entertainment. 

They do, however, have a great deal of power. There are a lot of people,
even today, who take Limbaugh's word as gospel. He wields a lot of
influence, rightly or wrongly. Less so than ten years ago -- but there
are still a lot of people who get their opinions from Rush. 

> It's not right-wingers calling for hate speech legislation. Hate speech is
> a nice way of shutting down debate on issues, especially if you can say
> something not directly related to race is "racist":

Um... I don't see anything here that claims this is a speech issue. Am I
missing something? 

Is it a racial issue? It could be, I dunno. Vouchers are a whole 'nother
issue entirely. 

> [*] As to what informed debate isn't: driving down to the cancelled study
> group last night, I saw this brilliant slogan on one of the overpasses:
> "Draft CEOs". This is so stupid that I don't even know where to begin. Maybe
> the person or persons that hung this slogan have informed opinions about the
> war, but this slogan doesn't show it.

It had the desired effect - it pissed you off. That was probably the
whole point. 

I do agree, slogans don't equate with informed debate... but informed
debate doesn't fit on a bumper sticker... and it doesn't fit in
television news shows, either. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net