Two different right-wing media personalities got suspended tonight, one for backing up the President's claims of a wiretap, and one for a philosophical difference that is widely shared by millions of Americans -- even some conservatives.
Both suspensions are defensible, even though they are in another sense completely opposed. One is backing his side in apparent absence of facts; the other is differing from her side, in a place where complete facts would be inadequate even in principle. Moral reason doesn't turn only on facts, after all: tell a computer all the facts about a case, but give it no moral rules, and it might not even understand that you were asking it a question. It certainly would not have any method for coming to a reasonable answer.
It is good for organizations to enforce standards, as it is good for people to uphold ideals. Which one of these seems best to you? Does either seem wrong? Can you say why?
21 comments:
Heh, a minor Burn, yet still a burn. Perhaps a prelude to The Burn at the Last Trial.
The Pro Life position is correct and righteous, because the hero always applies the rules he enforces on himself, if feasible.
The villain does not apply the rules on himself, if it is unfavorable: he expects mercy when losing but expects to wipe out his enemies when winning. That is less so hypocrisy as another thing entirely.
There is also the matter of compromise. Planned Profit choice is about creating newer, better, and more numerous abortions to fund research on medical immortality for elites and to fund Leftist bank accounts. Thus they do not make compromises such as zero federal funding on abortion, where as pro life at times have accepted that compromise.
Israel accepts compromises because life and peace is what they seek. The Arabs have cease fires and false attempts at peace, because they are lying, to themselves.
It is easy to see the deception in people's behaviors, which is the point of decrying hypocrisy.
As part of the True Believers and religious fanatics, they believe that their Lord commands them to preserve human life, due to some universal master plan. And thus if they refuse to preserve life and protect the plan of salvation, their own souls will burn in eternity at the Last Judgment.
As such, it is a divine law problem, not a human law problem.
If one were to merely deal with it as a human problem, it wouldn't be a problem. Just give everyone a dividend on the Planned Profit, profit, and everybody will be happy and it can fund itself. They do that with oil in Sweden and Norway.
The Pro Life position is correct and righteous, because the hero always applies the rules he enforces on himself, if feasible.
Her version of the pro-choice position is pretty defensible, really: she's a small government conservative, so why would she want the government involved in a decision like this? It comes down to a decision that is religious, often, and even when not approaches religion in its grappling with the ultimate questions. Freedom of conscience, rather than a government-mandated solution, is a plausible position to occupy.
I always give pro-life arguments, because they're the better arguments. But when it comes to the question of trusting the government with that degree of power, well....
First of all, Ms. Lahren's position does not appear defensible within the standard she articulated, fidelity to the Constitution. Although, she didn't specifically say so, almost every time someone says they are pro-choice they also mean they support Roe v. Wade or are opposed to that decision being overturned. That decision federalized an issue that was properly, according to the blue print laid out in the Constitution, left to the states to decide. While she could be pro-choice and anti Roe v. Wade, she did not make that distinction on The View. Additionally, Ms. Lahren had only three months prior to her appearance on The View stated that "abortion was murder." While it is possible that her opinion changed in the intervening three months the whole thing stinks of opportunism. Consequently, I don't blame the Blaze for cutting ties.
I don't blame the Blaze either -- I said it was perfectly defensible of them. Sometimes you have to part ways.
As to whether she intended to imply support for Roe, you yourself say you're reading that into what she said. I'm not inclined to read too much into what she says. She's not shown herself to be a very careful thinker, which is fine as far as it goes. It may really be as simple as, "I believe this; this conflicts with that; therefore, that must go."
That approach has its disadvantages, but notice that it generalizes as an approach to the states. That is, once you're respecting the 10th Amendment (as one ought to do), you still have to make a decision at the state level about what the standard should be. Her principles as stated apply to that decision as well.
Fair enough and a good point. However, I'm not entirely sure we are talking about a "principle" in her case. Just three months ago she said abortion was murder. Now she accuses pro-life, limited government conservatives of hypocrisy. Seems to me that if she really did change her opinion, assuming he previous position was honestly held, she would at least have a degree of understanding regarding those with whom, until recently, she shared a common position.
As pro-life as I am, I don't find the issue as cut-and-dried as many seem to. As a society we disagree sharply on whether a fetus, particularly a very early fetus, is a person. If it is, a number of consequences follow that would be pretty difficult to avoid, including perhaps the duty of adult humans to step in and protect a fetus in danger of being murdered. If it is not, a number of other consequences follow that would be pretty difficult to avoid, including perhaps the absolute rejection of the right of one's government or one's neighbors to interfere in a woman's decisions about her own body. We can keep shouting at each other over this divide indefinitely, yelling "You're a murderer!" "You're a controlling fascist!"--but we're not getting anywhere.
That's to say that I find the Blaze employee's position a bit boneheaded, particularly in someone who chooses to work for the Blaze. As for Fox, honestly all I see there is that the corporate management has changed and is chasing a different audience. It won't be long before they've thoroughly stopped chasing me. I can't imagine for an instant that they booted Napolitano because they're too principled to keep on staff someone who doesn't rise to their standards of evidence-based opinion, but perhaps I'm being unfair.
Heavy thumbs on the scale everywhere.
"That's NOT to say. . . ."
"That's not to say that I DON'T" . . . where's my head today.
I think Napolitano's suspension (not booting) was the more legitimate: he spoke without any facts and specific achievements to support his claim, while presenting his claim as though it were itself fact.
He may wind up being booted, but if so, I don't think it'll be over this failure, per se. He had a short-lived Saturday show in which he expounded on matters relating to Constitutional law, but he came off as too much shouting (literally) and too shrill (IMNSHO), his ratings were below the cellar, and his show was cancelled. He's just not doing too well as a Contributor.
Eric Hines
Well, I'm with you, Eric, I find Napolitano's style bombastic and don't really enjoy watching him. Actually, I feel that way about all the Fox opinion guys. We usually record the 6pm news and skim through it. I'm not interested in their lineup at other hours. The only other TV news we watch is the business coverage around lunchtime, CNBC I guess, especially Rick Santelli, who often has good guests.
I like Fox News' noon news, although Lee's constant interruption of her interviewees is off-putting. But other than that, the news reporting itself seems straight up, and the opinions at least based in fact and a measure of rationality. Bret Baier's Special Report is good, too, usually rational and calm discussion (although that was when Napolitano popped off). And Martha MacCallum's 1800 show is good, too. Amazingly enough, she's learned to curb her speechifying in her questions for her interviewees, and she's down to good questions with good answers from a range of guests.
Eric
That is so hard for interviewers: Shut up and let your guest speak! You brought him on for a reason.
And the reason is....
For guys like Bill O'Reilly, Greta van Susteran, Tucker Carlson, it seems to be service as sock puppets for their pontificating under the guise of an interview. Too bad, too, because O'Reilly used to have a good show, and Carlson was good as a contributor on other folks' shows.
Eric Hines
Even Rick Santelli, who is very content-focused and genuinely seems to like and respect his guests, gets all excited and talks over them. But it's only half the time, not 90% as in the case of the worst offenders.
Everyone interrupts in the heat or enthusiasm of the moment. That's a far cry from the steady drumbeat of interruptions and talking over that I see on too many "analysis" shows.
Eric Hines
To be fair, the hosts are all up against the clock, and are working furiously to get in all the points they wanted to get in by bringing up the topic.
Cavuto is a pretty nice guy, with a good, comfortable style.
I think Jon Scott may be the most underrated guy in TV news. He often seems to me to be not just a talking head in a talking heads business, and Jenna Lee is a nice pairing with him.
Can't stand Shep.
But radio is much better for interviews as it can allow the host a full hour on one guest if they like.
As to the original question, does Judge Napolitano have a journalistic responsibility? Did Tomi Lahren have an obligation to maintain certain moral standards as an employee of the Blaze? Without knowing exactly what each employer expected of them it's hard to say which is better or worse, as much of that determination would have to do with whether or not they failed to uphold their bargain with their employer.
To be fair, the hosts are all up against the clock, and are working furiously to get in all the points they wanted to get in by bringing up the topic.
Color me unsympathetic. The interviewers all know their questions, know the questions will require this amount of time, roughly, for a legitimate answer and not just a cute sound bite answer, and they know their interviewees and know whether they can give concise, yet reasonably complete answers, or tend to run on.
The interviewers are fully capable of structuring their segments and the number of questions to fit the blocked out time. Within that, good interviewers aren't married to their checklist of questions, and don't Procrustean-like try to force every question into the block. And when they are up against the clock--because nothing is perfect--they say, as they interrupt, they're up against the clock. MacCallum and Baier are good at this. And there's a world of difference between interrupting to manage time and interrupting because the interviewer has something to say, and he's the only one worthy of speaking.
Regarding Napolitano, define journalistic responsibility. Presuming to speak for Fox News, I think they expect their anchors and contributors to be able to back up their claims with facts or to say up front that they can't attribute when they make their claims. Napolitano attributed his claim to three unidentified sources, and then neither he nor any other anchor, each with their own research staff (in particular, Baier and your buddy Shep), could corroborate his claim. That's pretty egregious; it's the sort of thing I'd expect out of CNN or MSNBC, or the WaPo or NYT, not out of a legitimate news and analysis/opinion outlet.
Eric Hines
Freedom of conscience, rather than a government-mandated solution, is a plausible position to occupy.
I always give pro-life arguments, because they're the better arguments. But when it comes to the question of trusting the government with that degree of power, well....
If the US doesn't stop sacrificing children for profit and to Bhaal, the living will envy the dead as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Those weren't smoke filled pipe dreams somebody wrote down as entertainment and legend. The ashes of those cities still remain, plus brimstone that still burns.
Human punishment and corruption from governments are minor things to worry about, compared to divine punishment. Of course, if we limit ourselves to debating about human bullsh, the libertarian argument has validity. I, always notice how limited human imagination truly is when it comes to connecting dots.
Americans often note that freedom isn't freedom. Because somebody paid for it. If you are free to do something, there will be consequences of that choice, and Somebody always pays it, even if it is some brown foreigner looking Vietnamese that nobody in DC thinks much about as they help destroy.
1984 language time. Americans are "free" to abort the plan of their superior entities. They are not "free" from the consequences. Lucifer is also free, btw.
Post a Comment