D&C Editorial Page: Platform for hate speech/speakers
Exile spoke out against the D&C dislike for blogs in one of their recent ed board blog posts. The D&C continued their anti-blogospheric story in today’s Editorial Column:
The increasing coarseness in society isn’t limited to a certain segment. In fact, it has successfully spilled over into the ever-expanding technological world.
(snip)
Even in the Democrat and Chronicle’s online forums and chats, some online users cross the lines of decency and respect.
(snip)
An online etiquette must be established by the grown-ups…
Of course, the first on-line comment to this editorial was:
#*%^^%$# YOU, YOU $&$&%$&%^$%^-ING %^$&%#^$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kidding. There was actually a lot of thoughtful commentary about it, including this comment from mcquaidtom72:
It’s a waste of time to try to legislate civility, just as it has been a waste of time to try to legislate morality or sexual behavior.
Ding ding ding! Legislating that kind of stuff is a band-aid when the fabric of society & community is being systematically destroyed. If I’ve learned anything from my current job, it’s that the first, most important step of problem solving is to IDENTIFY THE ROOT PROBLEM.
But to the point of my post title: I don’t know who the D&C commenter hvantol is, but man, I wish he/she’d come to write for us here at RT. hvantol serves the hypocrisy right back to the D&C Ed Board:
This may be a good time to draw to your attention a recent study by Indiana University media researchers about one of your featured columnists, Bill O’Reilly. The study found that on his show O’Reilly calls a person or a group a derogatory name on average nine times per minute. The study can be found at:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreilly.html
You seem to have no trouble providing O’Reilly a forum. Where’s the outrage at the vitriol that regularly comes out of Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz or Rush? I think the mainstream media has been OK with their attack language because it is mostly directed at the powerless and those who stand up for them.
I don’t know if it’s because of that or because they’ve been cowed by conservative attack dogs over the last 30 years parroting the “Liberal media! Liberal media!” talking point. (Because, as Stephen Colbert has noted, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”)
Whatever the reason, now would be a good time to reconsider whether or not you want to promote the hate speakers on the very Editorial Page that decries hate speech.
Exile, you wrote “I don’t know who the D&C commenter hvantol is, but man, I wish he/she’d come to write for us here at RT.”
If you want, I can send hvantol a private message over the D&C boards right now asking her to check out our site.
In fact, I’ll do it right now. Got any suggests as to what to write?
Actually, the D&C system doesn’t use private messages. Weird. Nevermind.
This may actually be one of those areas where the “trickle down” is in fact a legitimate theory: we have all survived a barrage of negative, abusive media for the last two decades or more, from Jerry Springer to Rush Limbaugh. Once the weblog thing gained popularity, it became a springboard for the rest of us to respond.
What else did anyone expect to happen other than vitriol and hate? Especially in a time when Republican politicians were running roughshod over Liberals and Democrats; when Tom DeLay sat in a DC Restaurant and declared “I am the law;” when the Religious Right blames 911 on gays and pagans; when the president turns Guantanamo into an American Gulag; when the media is so cowed by fear that they positively refuse to question any leader on the most basic of issues.
Did they not expect that there would be a bit of tension? And the Conservatives who were already winning in this country responded by flaming in Liberal blogs, adding insult to injury so you get even more hate. Blaming blogs - which are, after all, merely a reflection of popular sentiment, at least among a certain stripe of the population - is blaming the victim.
At this point, I’m probably the Progressive Rochester blogger most likely to go off on a full-on rant, but even I’ve dialed it down a trifle. That’s because, barring attempts to be funny, I don’t find much of value in flaming. I suspect that, once things settle down a bit on the national political stage, and perhaps if they re institute the Fairness Doctrine, most of the hate will be bled out of the system except for your average troll.
Vitriol, hate speech, etc. I’d say its a matter of perspective. Al Franken, James Carville, and Paul Begala use perjorative language describing President Bush and other Republicans as often as the commenters mentioned in your post. Further, its not just civility thats been lost; I find many on both sides quite loose with the truth, as well.
Here are some random thoughts I had, not necessarily my position:
If it’s on the internet, I don’t think offensive language should have any sorts of regulations. The internet is a sort of wild west where community standards have more force than the rule of law.
Therefore, you can swear as much as you want. Do it tastelessly, however, and you’ll quickly discredit yourself and lose your audience.
Focusing on obscenity is a red herring.
It’s easy to rant, and I’m prone to it. It’s more difficult (and more effective) to mount a big-picture argument and to successfully persuade the few remaining middle-of-the-roaders. I’ve decided that I’m going to be calm, cool and collected on the D&C site, and do my best to make people realize that they are actually liberals (perhaps despite decades of Rushdoctrination).
When you get down to it, their arguments and logic don’t stand a chance. Let the wingers speak, they quickly come across as ignorant bigoted fools. They really are their own worst enemy. We must resist the temptation to call them retards, and stick to rebutting their feeble logic and presenting a compelling progressive vision for the future of our country.