From Part 1 of The Faster Times’s Q&A with William Kostric, a.k.a, The Man Who Brought The Loaded Gun to that Health Care Town Hall in Portsmouth, NH thereby causing, per TFT, “an explosion…of media coverage” (including that talking-to from Chris Matthews):
TFT: But… c’mon. You know what this reminds me of? And maybe this is a terrible metaphor, and if it is, I apologize. But this reminds me of, say, when Britney Spears was a 16 year-old virgin, but she would appear almost naked on magazine covers. Or Miley Cyrus. Same deal. Virgin. Naked. Magazine. And then people predictably freak out about that. …And then Britney/Miley says, “What? I just don’t see what the big deal is!”
C’mon. Weren’t people obviously going to get upset? It’s the President. People are afraid he’s gonna get shot. And people did get freaked out. People at the event freaked out. People watching on TV freaked out. I freaked out.KOSTRIC: Look, I don’t want to be condescending or dismissive but… gimme a break. Assassins don’t open carry. It’s just common sense. They don’t announce that they are armed. Further, 9mm’s don’t go through armored cars. And no, I don’t see what the big deal is. The assertion that people at the event freaked out is flat out wrong. I was there. A few people watching on TV may have but most of that leads back to irresponsible reporting on the part of MSNBC along with rampant hoplophobia…
Part II of the interview, TFT’s Oliver Miller teases, will be posted “at the end of the week” and include Kostric on “what it’s like to be on Fox News.”
Yeah, way to go Ms. Barnett. Further promote and link to the glorification of an extremist, attention-hungry Republican clown carrying loaded weapons around a political demonstration and presidential public event. Just what we need to hear from this ignorant yahoo "What it's like to be on Fox News." Didn't we hear that from Samuel Wurzelbacher? Thanks for all the links and quotes. And you puzzle about why your profession is held in such public contempt.
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 12:52 PM
Tom,
Thanks for chiming in. I don't much "puzzle about" why journalism might be "held in such public contempt." I am a little puzzled by your quick dismissal of the value-- any value-- in this Q&A with Kostric. But the question of "How Should News Orgs Cover Kostrician Characters" is, to me, an interesting one (and one that I gather you'd answer, "Not at all?")
Liz
#2 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 02:07 PM
Maybe as the author of the interview I'm a little... biased, but I would at least like to defend CJR for linking to the piece. This guy is no "Joe the Plumber." Going into the interview, I thought, "Oh, great, another Fox News-inspired zany Republican. Wonderful." But he's not. He's a hard-core Libertarian. He hates Bush and Obama, for instance. And he's pretty smart.
..So the interview was more intended as a polite conversation between a far-left Liberal (me), and a far, far-right Libertarian. I think actual honest conversation between the Right and the Left almost never happens these days, and -- seriously -- is a major problem in our country.
Anyway. I ramble on. And, oh, thank you for the linkage, CJR...
#3 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 03:08 PM
(and one that I gather you'd answer, "Not at all?")
No, that isn't it at all. It is, after all, news that rightwing extremists are bringing weapons now to public political gatherings. Yesterday TPM said there were twelve -- twelve! -- people at the Arizona event. That IS news. Do you suppose they may have been craving the same treatment as Kostric with their outrageous behavior: frenzied news attention, interviews, national face time? I mean, what other possible reason would twelve people strap on a gun to go to a contentious political event?
I contend that irresponsible cable outlets are escalating this situation and there is tragedy in the making. Making celebrities of these rightwing extremists is wholly irresponsible. Their irresponsibility is making heroes out of these whackjobs by frenzied playing in endless loops shots of these people and their weapons, their multiple appearances on television, and straighfaced interviews.
And cable news is, of course known for their infotainment, outrage-provoking, ratings-humping style. You are supposed to be the "watchdog" of journalism, presumably not ratings or profit-driven. I would hope to see a better analysis from you, Ms. Barrett, about this kind of dangerous, cynical ratings-mongering. No good will come of it.
Let me ask of both of you: what possible behavior do you think from the fanatic right wing of this country is TOO extreme to be legitimized and celebrated in the national media? What's next? Multiple interviews and media attention for the first rightwing extremist who pulls the trigger? Is that where we are heading here?
#4 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 04:42 PM
Here's more:
Late Update: One fun extra detail: the guy who planned the whole says he was motivated in part by William Kostric, the guy who brought the gun to event last week in New Hampshire.
The Deep Wackadoodle | TPM
Is this what you want to promote, Ms. Barrett?
My whole point is, there should be SOME way to responsibly report on this phenomenon of these whack jobs bringing deadly weapons to contentious public political events without glorifying them and escalating this kind of behavior among obviously deeply disturbed people.
#5 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 04:53 PM
Here, Mr. Miller. Your next interview!
At the event, local news stations were interviewing an Israeli man who was praising the “fantastic” “national health care” in Israel. During his remarks, a woman yelled out, “Heil Hitler!” The man stopped, became visibly upset, and exclaimed, “Did you hear this? She say to a Jew, ‘Heil Hitler’! Hear? I’m a Jew! You’re telling me, ‘Heil Hitler’? Shame of you!” After he angrily confronts her, the woman mocks him by making a crying sound to imply he is a whining baby.
I'll bet the woman is smart, too! At the link is video of the thing. That will probably help you track her down. Kind of a one-on-one interview - another liberal vs. whackjob. Ms. Barrett, I presume, will gladly promote it up for you with a write-up and links!
Think Progress » Woman yells ‘Heil Hitler’ to Jewish man praising Israel’s national health care system.
#6 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 05:03 PM
Here is more on how people like Mr. Miller are cynically escalating this behavior. It was a "planned publicity stunt" inspired by the glorification of Kostric by the media, who are easy dupes apparently, in order to demonstrate that the police in Phoenix Arizona protect people's "rights." Feel any smarter, Mr. Miller?
//
Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who interviewed the man with the assault rifle outside yesterday's Obama event in Arizona, today stated that the whole event was actually planned in advance.
Hancock appeared on Rick Sanchez's CNN show this afternoon. After explaining a few details about the interview, including the tidbit that he's known 'Chris' (the man with the AR-15) for two years because of their mutual work for Ron Paul, the CNN host said "the more we look into this, the more it appears that it was really planned."
"Oh, it's more planned than you think," Hancock responded. He then let loose with a string of details, including how Hancock contacted the Phoenix police department days before the event and how he was partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric, the man armed with a gun outside of Obama's town hall in New Hampshire last week.
Most of the interview was spent in a back-and-forth between the two men on the planning of the event, and whether what Hancock did was 'disingenuous' as a 'publicity stunt.' Hancock also appeared to make a small reference to astroturf/tea party activists when he said "you have these people coming in by the busload, there to create a scandal" but for his and Chris's part, "we're all friends, we were having a good time, and the event was more peaceful."
Sanchez: A lot of people are going to look at this and say it was a publicity stunt.
Hancock: Absolutely - you guys are so easy. What we wanted to do was make sure that people around the country knew that law enforcement in Phoenix, Arizona protects our rights. Oftentimes, the citizenry are better armed than law enforcement. They need us on their side. We know what we're up against.
Sanchez: You're the only ones there with weapons. What are you up against? Ladies with brooms?
//
Assault Rifle Interview Outside Obama Event In Phoenix Was Planned | LiveWire
Shouldn't there be some kind of discussion about where the limits of irresponsible cable news "journalism" might be? A little soul-searching? I know that's not your strong suit, but the alternative is reflecting back after another national tragedy -- and I'm thinking of the Kennedy assassination -- actually occurs and wondering if you and your news outfit might have contributed to it? I'm looking at you, Mr. Miller.
#7 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 06:34 PM
Geez. Yes. Let's just ignore people who disagree with us... and then they'll go away. Yes. Absolutely. Let's not talk to them or anything.
#8 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 06:43 PM
I don't appreciate your condescension very much, nor your deliberate distortion of my statements. I'm not the only one who is increasingly alarmed at you irresponsible ratings-humpers.
But don't condescend to listen to an average citizen. Here's one for you to read and grow on:
..."And those are but the latest manifestations of a weeklong campaign by a host of radio and cable TV personalities not merely choosing to ignore the hatred, but actively working to gin up the passion, to pour fuel on what quickly is becoming a blaze."
Unhealthy silence - ColumbiaTribune.com
Go ahead, Mr. Miller, continue to pour your fuel. But don't be shocked when you reap the whirlwind.
#9 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 09:08 PM
Tom,
I don't quibble with your points about "irresponsible cable outlets... playing in endless loops shots of these people and their weapons, their multiple appearances on television, and straighfaced interviews" (although "straightfaced" isn't precisely how I'd describe Chris Matthews's interview with Kostric...maybe red-faced.) CJR writes fairly frequently about this particular cable news tendency (relentless, irresponsible, loop-coverage). And, in this case, we'll certainly have our eye on how news outlets *do* decide to cover what looks like the growing number of people bringing their guns to town halls and other events (in-studio interviews for all?)
What struck me about Miller's Q&A with Kostric (in addition to Miller's efforts to try to understand where this guy is coming from, as well as his efforts to call bullshit on Kostric rather than just call bullshit AT Kostric for the cameras a la Matthews ) was the brief bit of media criticism(?) Kostric offered (though didn't elaborate on), the bit about MSNBC's "irresponsible coverage" of... him (would he include his invitation to Hardball that night as part of that "irresponsible coverage")?
I think we agree more than we disagree on much of this.
Liz
#10 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 09:51 PM
I think you are right, Ms. Barrett. I do appreciate and respect the work that CJR does..
I submit, however, that Matthews' treatment of Kostric is of a piece with what these extremists are after vis a vis attention. They want to "prove" that the media is after them, and Matthews, of course, fell right into that. And then Fox is on the other side glorifying them to hero status. And then along comes Miller, "This is like ...BRITNEY SPEARS!!" "Gee! What is it LIKE to get on FOX??!!" Like a mediabistro fanboy of the bad bad gun-totin' outlaw. Of what possible journalistic worth is that? In short, all three have been dupes of this extremist.
But it isn't even that so much. It is the escalation that worries me, that is precipitated by that blatant, giddy glorification. It is the lack of good journalistic sense in the way these incidents are reported. There was a time in the history of journalism when real journalists, responsible journalists, got together and agonized over where those bounds might be.
I linked above to a TPM story that the whole Arizona incident was a big publicity stunt perpetuated by some of the same people who aided Timothy McVeigh. Here AZ Gun-Toters Tied to Violent 90s Era Militia | TPM.
My question stands, and it is a serious one: What possible behavior do you think from the fanatic right wing of this country is too extreme to be legitimized and celebrated in the national media? I think that question is worthy of consideration and debate.
#11 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 11:44 PM
...which is, more or less, the question from my first reply to your original comment: How Should News Orgs Cover Kostrician Characters? (And, in mentioning Matthews's "red-faced" interview with Kostric I wasn't suggesting THAT was the "how-to" model... at all).
#12 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 07:40 AM
Well, I'm just an ordinary citizen. How DOES the profession of journalism best treat dangerous extremists? Think of "Squeaky" Fromm. Would she (should she) have gotten multiple, celebratory interviews to explain her views about Gerald Ford on CNN?
How do they treat a Holocaust denier? How are they treating that lady who shouted "Heil Hitler" to the Jewish man (linked above)? With multiple, celebratory television interviews to explain her views? I think we are well-acquainted with her views, as we are with Kostric's brand of paranoid, white supremist extremism. We learned all about it in (non-celebratory) interviews with Tim McVeigh.
I understand the dilemma, Ms. Barrett. I think that the fact that these whackjobs show up armed to the teeth IS newsworthy. I prefer Matthews' "red-faced" interview to Miller and CNN (and Fox, of course). At least he conveyed the idea that this was extremist, shocking, and out-of-bounds behavior.
Rick Perlstein addressed your question in his recent column "In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition."
"Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim. ...
"It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds. "
Ms. Barrett, I'm just an ordinary citizen, not a journalist. It is incumbent upon you and your colleagues here at CJR, I think, to open a conversation with other journalists about the boundaries of responsible journalism. And I think it is incumbent upon you and your more responsible colleagues to apply some peer pressure and professional pressure and some leadership on this issue. If that isn't your mission here at CJR, then I misunderstand your reason for being here.
Thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate you reading my comments.
#13 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 10:36 AM
Tom, your comments about my interview give me the uncanny sensation that... you haven't actually read my interview.
#14 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 12:31 PM
Mr. Miller,
You are correct, I didn't read the whole thing. Ms. Barrett posted an excerpt and then I went to your website to find out more about who you are. That gave me a little understanding of why you did this kind of interview and why you treated it the way you did. Who's next? Fred Phelps?
Let me say, most adults already know all about the views of Kostric and his paranoid, violent extremists. They've been around since the 1920's and even before that. In the 1950's they were the John Birchers; they proliferated through the 1980's and 1990's with the militia and white supremacist and skinheads, culminating with the Oklahoma City bombing. If you knew anything about political history -- and I urge you to do a little bit of reading -- you would know this. I suggest you initiate a conversation with David Niewert, an expert on this brand of extremism, and with Mark Potok with the Southern Poverty Law Center. You should do this for no other reason as a budding journalist than to understand better who these people are.
Before this particular year, 2009, John Birchers, neo-Nazis, skinheads, were not treated in the national press with celebratory interviews and extensive facetime on national networks. The bringing of loaded weapons to presidential events, or ANY political event, was indefensible, even two years ago.
Do you think Kostric and his extremists' purpose in bringing loaded weapons to a political event is anything less than a violent threat and an invitation to assassinate our president? Because that is exactly what they are doing. You are helping to publicize that invitation.
#15 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 01:02 PM
Well, Tom, I have to congratulate you on your ability to... provoke a response from me, I guess. (And after five years of writing for the Internet, I thought that I was immune to negative comments.)
It's amazing to me that you would write ten or more comments attacking an interview as "irresponsible" without actually reading the interview -- but, well, it's not that amazing to me, I guess...
A couple quick points:
1) I hated the Chris Matthews interview. I personally thought that it took an already volatile situation and made it even worse.
2) I also hate the increasingly Balkanized state of new reporting, the whole Fox vs. MSNBC thing. ...The whole thing where each network reports on Democrats or Republicans as though they are insane members of a different species. Fox vs. MSNBC is actively making the political situation in this country worse: I fully believe that. Shutting out the other side and calling them "crazy" or "Nazis" don't help anything -- it just inflames the other side, leading to more name-calling, leading to further radicalization and hardening of viewpoints, etc...
3) Mr. Kostric and I spoke for several days before the interview. I mentioned to him how annoyed I was by the Fox/MSNBC style of reporting, and he agreed with me. Our written guidelines for the entire interview were: "A polite political discussion that avoids cliches and stereotypes about the other side."
4) So, that was the background of the interview. Now, if we did all that and the result was still "irresponsible," then I apologize. But at least we tried.
...You've also repeatedly requested that journalists stop reporting on sensational stories; such as the gun-nuts who are crashing the town-hall events. I simply don't see how that's possible...
First of all, talking about exciting/new/weird events is an established human tradition, dating back to the Stone Age. "Man is the story-telling animal," and all of that. I don't see any way to change that.
But even if all "mainstream" journalists got together and agreed not to report on X type of story, it still wouldn't work. Not in the age of Twitter and blogs and Facebook. ...All that would happen would be that the story would be picked up via other means. If there was a media blackout about the William Kostric story, then blogs would rush in to fill the void, and the result would be the same... People just want news, and these days especially, they no longer care so much about whether that news comes from the NY Times, or from other sources...
In my opinion, the best way to be a responsible journalist is to take a "sensational" story (Chris Matthews ranting at a gun-nut), and "de-sensationalize" it, by looking at the story from a calm, hopefully un-biased perspective.
And by the way, even if no one else's opinion were changed by my interview, well... mine certainly were. I came into the interview thinking that William Kostric was one kind of person, and left it with a completely different understanding of him.
So there's that. And I guess that wasn't exactly a couple of "quick" points by me.
And even ignoring everything else that I've written, I think it's nothing more than common politeness to read an interview before repeatedly condemning it as "irresponsible."
#16 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 03:19 PM
I disagree with Oliver Miller's claim that Kostric is "pretty smart." I think he is of average intelligence.
When Chris Matthews asked him to specifically list which of his rights were being violated by the Obama administration, he gave a very vacuous, nonsensical response. Maybe he's just not telegenic. Or maybe he's a clueluess twit who likes to draw attention to himself.
Perhaps Oliver Miller has been covering these town halls for so long that he has built up a tolerance for stupid... after speaking to a Neanderthal, Kostric might seem "pretty smart" by comparison.
But "capable of reading a book" and "curious about the Constitution" do not mean "pretty smart."
#17 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 03:57 PM
...You've also repeatedly requested that journalists stop reporting on sensational stories; such as the gun-nuts who are crashing the town-hall events. I simply don't see how that's possible...
Thank you for your response, Mr. Miller. I'd like you to find anywhere in this thread that I requested that "journalists stop reporting on sensational stories." I will thank you for not misrepresenting my statements. My whole point is that handling this kind of volatile situation requires RESPONSIBLE journalism.
Frankly, I didn't read your interview because having led a full, fully engaged life, I am well acquainted with the positions of people like Kostric. I have lived through the bloody dying and destruction that his friends and political allies have wrought. I knew as well that the man would be dishonest in the interview and God knows we have enough wholesale lies published daily through better shops than yours. And judging from your bio page, snickering about what a slacker you are, I knew that you were completely out of your depth in handling this kind of interview. So I didn't see any percentage in wasting the time and I didn't see that I could learn anything from it.
I don't mean to be unkind. I wish you the best in your career as a journalist, but if I may, I suggest that you might benefit from the guidance and wisdom of a more mature and wiser, more responsible journalist to mentor you. That used to be the norm in the profession of journalism, which distinguished it from the writing of Ron Paul screeds and National Enquirer newspapers. That's one of the things that I miss about real journalism.
If I haven't offended you too awfully much, I still encourage you to seek out a conversation with David Niewert and Mark Potok, to get a deeper understanding of Kostric's kind of extremism. I thank you for responding here and I encourage you in your future career to continue to engage with your readers, and non-readers. It can be a constructive exercise, even if somewhat painful.
Best wishes.
#18 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 05:28 PM
Good lord, Tom. I've WORKED for the Southern Poverty Law center.
Why don't you read the article? It'll take about ten minutes. Are you purposefully trying to get me annoyed? I do regret falling into this trap. I should just ignore you. And I will willingly ignore negative comments on my side calling me a "loser," "fag," "Nazi," etc...
But I refuse to accept this level of condescension from someone who cannot be bothered to read something that he feels completely qualified to opine about.
#19 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 05:43 PM
Correction: *on my SITE.
Let's just do this. Because this is... absurd.
#20 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 05:45 PM
I read your article just now Mr. Miller, as you requested. ....Aside: I hope you weren't implying that I might go to your site and call you a Nazi or other inflammatory names. I would never do anything of the sort, and if someone did, it wasn't me. I believe I have been respectful even when my criticism has been harsh. And I regret that you feel you have fallen into a "trap." I take it that you feel "trapped" into responding to my criticism. I do greatly appreciate the dialogue.
Have you ever watched a Rachel Maddow interview? What I like about her interviews -- put the politics aside -- is that she thoroughly prepares for each interview, she has a deep grasp of the issue at hand, she respectfully allows people enough time to make their case, and her followup questions are intelligent, on point, and add depth to viewer's understanding, whether calling the subject on a misstatement, or asking for further clarity on a point. By the end of the interview, the viewer is smarter and more knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
Here's what I thought of your interview: We didn't learn anything new, because Kostric just repeated the same points with exactly the same language, disingenuously, that he made with Chris Matthews. You didn't sufficiently prepare for the interview to ask probing followups. You have limited knowledge and understanding of the politics that drive this kind of fanatic. I thought your language was immature ("wussy liberals") and that was off-putting to your prime audience.
So what we have is you, who were supposed to be in charge of the interview, allowed your subject to disingenuously, in my opinion, mislead your audience by spouting his survivalist philosophy, while you denigrated yourself AND your audience by subjugating yourself as somehow less admirable a person as a "liberal." And you didn't do your homework, evidently, beforehand.
I'm sorry if this stings. As I said, I don't mean to be unkind. It seems to be a hazard of journalism any more that your colleagues won't tell you, but there you have it, an assessment of your interview from a reader's perspective. I offer it as constructive criticism and I take no joy in your discomfort.
By the way. How do you know that "there is no direct link between these events"? You couldn't possibly know that without a thorough investigation. Again, evidence that you haven't done your homework.
#21 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 09:38 PM
All right, Tom. You read the interview. ...That's all I ask. Any criticisms after that point are... valid, because they're your own, and because a writer can't really see what he's doing from the outside.
But I could tell from your comments, even before you admitted it, that you hadn't read the interview... and that was -- there's really no good way to say this -- incredibly annoying.
I have no problem with accepting criticism. But it was a new experience for me to be criticized just based on an idea of what I might have written, and if I overreacted, then bad on me.
#22 Posted by Oliver Miller, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 11:28 AM
Well, remember that my original criticism was of Ms. Barrett, and a plea for HER and CJR to provide some better media criticism and leadership in the journalism community.
I was actually very sorry that your interview wasn't any better than the few quotes she presented along with her promotion of your interview. I understand your annoyance that I didn't read it. I still think that you doing that kind of People Magazine type interview reflects badly on you professionally and on your colleagues as well.
Now, maybe People Magazine is what you aspire to, I have no idea. My criticism goes more to the universe of "serious" journalism, specifically that sorry state of political journalism. The state of the profession is profoundly corrupt, and one reason, I think, is that you journalists swim around in a hermetically sealed biosphere much removed from the real world in a mutual circle jerk (excuse the crudity) telling each other how wonderful everyone's work is, when in reality, it really sucks. So I think it is healthy to sometimes hear from the readership, and you are gracious to accept the criticism and respond to it. And so is Ms. Barrett.
Now as to your apparent factual error where you said "there is no direct link between these events". Are you aware that Kostric just recently moved from Arizona to New Hampshire, and in Arizona he was involved with the same militia and survivalist movements as these fanatics who staged the Arizona publicity stunt?
Does he grow his own pigs and arugula there in New Hampshire, or how does he and his family eat, seeing as how he has "gone Galt" by denying the poor suffering nation the value of his labor? Well evidently you didn't ask or didn't inform your readers. And what is this man's qualification to assign a psychiatric diagnosis (hapolophobia) to citizens who have concerns about people with a violent irrational mindset bringing loaded weapons to a political rally? Or is that an invented smear fabricated by people on the political right in the 1960's? You just let that one go by.
I think you missed a real opportunity here to do some groundbreaking, very valuable reporting. It would have been a credit to you, to your profession, and to your newly minted website as well.
Cheers.
#23 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 12:39 PM
One other point -- is it not valid to criticize, for instance, the inviting of certain discredited actors to air their abhorrent views on a news show? Viewers aren't allowed to criticize, say, Chris Matthews for inviting a Holocaust denier to expound on Israeli policy, as an example? I'm not allowed to criticize CNN for inviting Betsy McCaughey to talk about health care policy, or Louis Farrakan to discuss race relations? Yes, those conversations DO have a place in the public discourse, but I'd argue that it should be done carefully and judiciously, and responsibly. I'd argue it would be (IS) irresponsible of the journalist to allow them the unlimited ability to express their abhorrent views without context or rational rebuttal. And I think that is what you have done here. Thoughts?
#24 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 12:51 PM
Kostric offered (though didn't elaborate on), the bit about MSNBC's "irresponsible coverage" of... him (would he include his invitation to Hardball that night as part of that "irresponsible coverage")?
Liz, I elaborate on it here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/5/10/1905336/Will%20Kostric%2C%20extra%20stuff.pdf
Tom, two words: ad hominems
When you can present an idea without them, I may deem you worth responding to.
Oliver, I agree with this!
"The whole thing where each network reports on Democrats or Republicans as though they are insane members of a different species. Fox vs. MSNBC is actively making the political situation in this country worse: I fully believe that. Shutting out the other side and calling them "crazy" or "Nazis" don't help anything -- it just inflames the other side, leading to more name-calling, leading to further radicalization and hardening of viewpoints, etc..."
That plus... I'm not on either side. It's so annoying to be labeled right wing anytime I defend firearms or fiscal responsibility and left wing anytime I rail against the war or prohibition.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-08-24.asp
#25 Posted by William Kostric, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 11:12 AM