The high price of free speech
Remember that Kansas religious sect that sparked legislation in several states barring protesters from coming too close to military funerals after it made a habit of showing up to argue, in less than constructive or respectful terms, that the Iraq war and its casualties are the country's divine punishment for "tolerating" homosexuality?
Well, Wednesday they threatened to illegally picket the funerals of the Amish children killed in Monday's schoolhouse shooting in Pennsylvania, which they argue was God's decidedly quirky means of wreaking vengeance upon Gov. Ed Rendell for criticizing them and their tactics. But then some fine patriot with an "overfriendly" interest in free speech agreed to give them an hour on nationally syndicated radio to air their views further afield if they aborted that noble mission, and they accepted.
Rather than negotiating with tactless, vacuous (I hesitate to use the word "intellectual") extremists for free media play to further pollute what's already a veritable wasteland, I say we should be making them do what all other glorified hate groups have to do when they want to spout filth to the masses: form a PAC and start running campaign ads.
But, either way, this is still America – if dead children aren't being used to score ideological points, it's a safe bet that, somewhere, live ones are being used as flak-deflecting props for embattled politicians who want the appearance of endorsement by other human beings, but not all the competence, sentience and that pesky tendency to ask questions that so often accompanies it.
Just ask Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) – a slightly popular fellow these days, being chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee and all – who rolled out a squirming gaggle of the little cretins for his Tuesday press conference on the Foley page-sex scandal – set, of all places, at a day care center:
If anything, it's farcical nonsense like this that creates the ubiquitous "media bias" – not in the form of an ideological or political bias, mind you, but an access bias.
It's really quite simple: Journalists like to talk to people who don't erect walls – of silence, subterfuge or, well, small children – between them and the information they need to do their jobs even passably well.
And, unfortunately for the very concept of deliberative democracy, cream can't rise to the top if it's already sour.
-----
p.s. 200th post! I'm officially pathetic.
Well, Wednesday they threatened to illegally picket the funerals of the Amish children killed in Monday's schoolhouse shooting in Pennsylvania, which they argue was God's decidedly quirky means of wreaking vengeance upon Gov. Ed Rendell for criticizing them and their tactics. But then some fine patriot with an "overfriendly" interest in free speech agreed to give them an hour on nationally syndicated radio to air their views further afield if they aborted that noble mission, and they accepted.
Rather than negotiating with tactless, vacuous (I hesitate to use the word "intellectual") extremists for free media play to further pollute what's already a veritable wasteland, I say we should be making them do what all other glorified hate groups have to do when they want to spout filth to the masses: form a PAC and start running campaign ads.
But, either way, this is still America – if dead children aren't being used to score ideological points, it's a safe bet that, somewhere, live ones are being used as flak-deflecting props for embattled politicians who want the appearance of endorsement by other human beings, but not all the competence, sentience and that pesky tendency to ask questions that so often accompanies it.
Just ask Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) – a slightly popular fellow these days, being chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee and all – who rolled out a squirming gaggle of the little cretins for his Tuesday press conference on the Foley page-sex scandal – set, of all places, at a day care center:
Reporter: "Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me."Uh... right... Whatever else you might have to say about the GOP, its PR people are still crack geniuses who know how to work those behavior-molding social sanctions like it's nobody's business. For who's going to ask the tough questions when in order to do so, they'll have to burden their consciences with on-the-record knowledge that they're corrupting young minds?
Reynolds: "I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave."
If anything, it's farcical nonsense like this that creates the ubiquitous "media bias" – not in the form of an ideological or political bias, mind you, but an access bias.
It's really quite simple: Journalists like to talk to people who don't erect walls – of silence, subterfuge or, well, small children – between them and the information they need to do their jobs even passably well.
And, unfortunately for the very concept of deliberative democracy, cream can't rise to the top if it's already sour.
-----
p.s. 200th post! I'm officially pathetic.
posted by Holly at 1:19 AM
<< Home