Letters to the Editor
Paul Rosenberg
Published Letters: 995 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Not Like Rush! The Role of Roles In Civilized Discourse
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn:
(3) Claiming that Hume wears an "anchor" hat sometimes and a "commentator" hat other times does not distinguish his situation from Olbermann's. That is exactly the argument MSNBC is making about Olbermann:
Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.
Keith's an adult," Griffin said. "He can tell when it's appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That's one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he's doing anything."
You were under the impression that you were rebutting MSNBC's argument to defend and distinguish Hume, but you were actually mimicking it. You're confused about what the issues are about which you're commenting and you think you're supporting an argument which is actually the opposite of the one you're making.
BTW, this is precisely what Rush Limbaugh failed to do, when he tried invading Olbermann's home turf of sports commentary.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/
Conservatives almost always have a problem with being role-appropriate. They just don't get it. And why should they? They are right, and it's their job to tell us that, in no uncertain terms. Everything else is secondary.
They also assume that everyone else is just like them, which is why they think it's enough to prove "liberal bias" in the media just to point out that working journalists (thought not their bosses!) are predominantly Democrats, or that they say things off the air, or in opinion venues, that show a liberal attitude toward things.
What they just can't get through their heads is that journalism has standards, and that if you adhere to those standards, then there are constraints on bias. Ideally, truth is one of those constraints. When folks lie, you don't give them a free pass. That's part of the journalists' job. Not the Versailles "journalists" of course. But the real ones.
And that's because journalism is fundamentally a liberal enterprise--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed sense of the term. It is liberalism in this broad historical sense that has become the core defining public value structure of the West. It has roots in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Bible, but it is also something historically unique, which at the same time has enormous universal appeal, precisely because it allows for a wide range of latitude at the personal level, which makes it compatible with diverse cultural traditions as they transition into modern industrial and post-modern post-industrial stages of development.
This is what fundamentalists of all stripes--from Bushies to bin Laden wannabes--absolutely cannot stand: a universalist outlook that transcends and relativizes their own. It's not enough that it lets them be, because they demand that others must conform to their vision--or else suffer the consequences. "Live and let live" is anathema to them.
This is why media issues cut to the very core--not just because media controls how we see the world day-to-day, but because they also reflect fundamental assumptions about the very core of who and what we are, both as individuals and as a culture.
-
The Trained Seal School of Journalism
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn:
Valentinian
The questioner said nothing about the staff of thePolitico.com, but about its ownership.
Amazing, isn't it? In his defense, maybe he doesn't know about the Politico ownership piece I wrote, so I am going to send it to him and ask that he clarify what he said in response to that questioner.
But note--he is so conditioned by the rightwing focus on journalists, rather than owners and management, that he doesn't even notice what the actual question is.
The journalistically optimal response in such a situtation would be saying something like, "What do you know about the ownership? And where did you learn it?"
But you have to actually hear the question first, in order to realize it assumes evidence you're not familiar with.
Instead: "Aark! Aark!"
-
Au Contrare! Olbermann's Sports Background IS Relevant
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kitt:
Also, The Dixie Chicks are musicians, but that didn't limit their ability to understand that Bush is an embarrassment. So, with that in mind, I think Olberman's sports background is irrelevant to whether or not he is qualified to express an opinion.
Not only are musicians traditional repositories for folk wisdom disdained at court, making them eminently qualified to speak on things political, there's also this musician Dave Frishberg's take on the journalistic integrity of sports journalism, in his song, "The Sports Page," which is, he sings, "The one place to turn, when a fellah wants to know the score."
-
Except In The Negative
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul Dirks, offering excellent advice:
A framing suggestion.....
A small point by I suggest when discussing evolution we use the phrase "acknowlege evolution" as opposed to "believe in evolotion"
"Believe in" makes it easier to conflate a known fact with a religious belief. Evolution, of course doesn't give a fig what we beleive (except of course when those beliefs interfere with our reproductive success).
It is quite clear that many do not "believe in evolution" as proven by their staunch refusal to think beyond the level of amoeba.