At what point should political contributors be removed/ignored...

...due to inflammatory language or outrageous comments? I bring this up in part because of the outrageous comments of Dana Loesch on the act performed by the marines who urinated on the dead Taliban combatants. She first stated that she saw no reason for calling the act a scandal, then stated she would "drop trou and do it too." Despite the act possibly violating US and international law. The act violated the Geneva Convention which prohibits humiliating or degrading treatment to any persons, including combatants who have been placed outside the fight for any reason.

The other reason I bring this up is due to reading Media Matters article on Erick Erickson, which has a list of his outrageous and inflammatory language pre-his job at CNN, including referring to former Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester," and stating "[Sens. Byron] Dorgan and [Chris] Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers. Instead of 72 virgins, they'll get ambassadorships." Both were on his Twitter feed.

The fact that CNN has not officially denounced either person for their language and actions makes me wonder at what point they will. The other side of the coin is how Pat Buchanan has finally been fired after years of racist and homophobic remarks, as well as writing an article defending Hitler◊. The article is still available elsewhere, however MSNBC did have the prescience to remove the article from their own site.

I bring all this to light to bring about a debate as to why commentators who make such remarks are not universally denounced, or better yet ignored, by normally sensible media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC.

Mods, I'm afraid this is one of a few topics I've made, so any suggestions as to how to improve the op, or if I should clarify the topic more so that derails do not happen more, will be greatly appreciated.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Looks good to me. This is probably better than any of the OP's I've approved since the thread approval system was introduced.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Meh, I wasn't really sympathetic to the outrage over the urination on the bodies. Though the insult towards the judge was really out of line.

I'm still of the mind that we shouldn't need to be hamstringed by the Geneva convention when we're fighting people who don't obey it in any way themselves. But bias aside, her opinion might be offensive to some, but it isn't really all that inflammatory to the point of where the person should be removed. It's a valid opinion. But when you decline into name-calling and slurs against individuals, you're not contributing anything of value.

If there's a large enough portion of people who don't outright denounce the remarks or even support them, then they deserve to be heard as much as any other, as well as the fact that it's more viewers and that morally, it isn't right to stifle opinion, especially if people agree with it.

Using your examples again, I'm not the only one who wasn't shocked about those bodies being pissed on, and I'm not the only person who supports what she said about it. I'd personally say that she shouldn't be taken off the channel for those remarks as I agree with them. Any opinion, no matter how ludicrous, usually has its supporters, which is why it takes a lot to get a network to drop someone.

edited 23rd Jan '12 10:32:53 PM by Barkey

I'd say, the fact that we're even having this conversation points up the necessity for the average media consumer to skip the talking heads when it comes to news.

That said, we need a new standard of journalistic honesty. If you want to be an op-ed writer, that's fine...but you need to declare yourself as such. If you declare yourself a "reporter", well then there are standards you ought to be upholding.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

^

Agreed. Reporters skip any sort of personal opinion and stick strictly to personal observation in the field, with a greater emphasis on what other people observe and say when possible.

I agree. And I'm glad to say that reporters and other commentators at CNN have denounced Loesch for her comments, but not CNN itself. I meant more "why haven't they been reprimanded for this shit by the executives or producers?"

As for your view on the marines urinating on corpses, Barkey, I'm afraid I disagree, but that's a topic for another thread, and I can understand your example.

However, Loesch later said on her radio show "I think the progressives felt as though that these Marines should be bowing to the Taliban, and every other combatant, and every other foreign entity just like this administration does."

edited 24th Jan '12 12:37:24 AM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

The comment you quoted in the final paragraph of your post is abhorrent.

I don't think there's any difference between the Taliban pissing on dead US Marines and US Marines pissing on dead Taliban fighters.* In either case, disgust is only slightly more natural a reaction as the deed itself is.

*To clarify: both are instances of one side in a conflict doing useless, stupid things that serve no purpose at all.

edited 24th Jan '12 2:27:12 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Oh, I am supposed to be outraged at treatment of dead Taliban fighters? Really? Should I buy some tissues and prepare to weep copiously? Do me a favour. Compared to what the Taliban and their Al Quaeda allies do to their captives on a regular basis, and to their own people on an even more regular basis, urination on their corpses, if proved to have been done, is extremely mild. As for the "oh, we don't want to offend the Taliban and their supporters" argument, that is ballocks as well. It is in their very nature to be offended about Westerners. All Westerners, even the useful idiots in the yumanrites crowd are targets for them. Read some Kipling. His views on the Afghans are still pertinent today.

I don't care about the Taliban and their supporters a lot, either; it's just that doing things like mutilating corpses is 0% constructive. Absolutely nothing is gained by it, except that the other side gains some undeserved sympathy. It's better to play fair when possible and at least refrain from useless crime.

And I think everyone can agree on that much, and it seems to me that there's no point in derailing further.

edited 24th Jan '12 2:27:33 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Two words, Piers Morgan. Look up what happened to British troops in Iraq when that absolute prick and his so-called newspaper, the Daily Mirror, printed fake pictures of prisoner abuse. Involving trucks that never left the confines of the garrison in Britain that they were based in. Even when the pictures were proven as fake, the terrorist scum in Iraq were still targeting British and coalition forces troops using them as an excuse.

Then ask yourself why Morgan is still a celebrity, allowed to do big interview shows on British and US network television?

I don't think anyone can be expected to respect a journalist that lies.

Isn't this self-evident?

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The thing is, there are a lot of folks, otherwise thinking people who still respect Morgan and forget about what he did. And buy his books and watch his programmes and heed his opinions, etcetera.

Actually, if you take as a given that large terrorist organizations can't be completely killed off . . .

Wait, is it off-topic to argue with Tam's statements? (It seems a bit pointless to debate whether someone should be fired for offensive statements if we can't even agree whether they're offensive, but trying to debate whether they are in fact offensive seems likely to spark both a derail and a flame war.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Oh well, I have had my say on the matter. Happy debating.

That's not a comparison you want to make, though. Surely the USA and their allies want to be better than the Taleban, no?

I think the outrage about it is a bit odd because, well, those people were already dead, no? So it's not like we're talking about actual abuse here. It's why Amnesty is never reporting on cannibalism and the like, they say: "We are about what happens to people before they die, not what happens to their corpses". Still, just saying "the other side is no better either" doesn't cut it when the other side are violent fundamentalists that one should try to be better than.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Doing nasty things to corpses only matters if someone's gonna be offended and do something about it, and there is every indication that terrorists do take it upon themselves to avenge things like this. So being needlessly nasty gets the terrorists nastier than they would otherwise be, and thus you're basically shooting yourself in the leg when you're being stupidly offensive for no reason.

Come up with a hypothetical scenario or talk about this case but frame your discussion so that you point out the connection to the topic and explain why what you're saying is relevant.

edited 24th Jan '12 3:07:26 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

This is not the same thing as being a respected journalist.

Fight smart, not fair.

So

, here's a hypothetical scenario for you: We have a political commentator hired by CNN, who concurrently runs a blog in which she equates Republicans with Pro-life extremists like the ones which have firebombed abortion clinics. She states these same views on her CNN show, not bothering to make a distinction between moderate republicans, conservative republicans, or extremist republicans. She is not told to stop by CNN's executives or removed for her views, despite a public outcry over these views.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

EDIT: No, I've nothing useful to contribute to this.

edited 24th Jan '12 1:34:59 PM by TheGloomer

It occurs to me that the executives may be keeping around people who espouse such comments in an effort to garner more ratings, ala Glenn Beck before he was removed. Fox's tagline for their contributors (as opposed to their journalists) was, afterall at some point, something akin to "love them or hate them, you just can't miss them."

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I'd like to draw an analogy with our own site. The only point at which we need to remove someone is if they're posting things that are legally questionable (say, links to torrent sites.) However, we often remove people who are saying things that in some way contradict the image we want to present. In the same way, political contributors should be removed from their position in whatever fashion is legally available if they say things that go against what their network wants of them. (I specify "legally available" because I'm not sure they can be fired outright, and if not, I wouldn't object to their getting severance.)

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean liberalism. If, for some bizarre reason, I were to make an account on Chimpout, I would have no right to complain were they to ban me for saying anti-racist stuff. Their site, their rules. By the same token, I wouldn't object were Fox News to get rid of someone for supporting liberal views. (Yes, I did just compare Fox News to Chimpout. They don't deserve it, but only by a matter of degrees.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Makes sense. But that just makes me wonder what sort of image CNN wants to be presenting. :/

But one big difference in my mind is how much more damaging a contributor on a news station can be compared to a contributor on the site can. Our site is edited by thousands of people, any one of which can affect discourse, and one contributor's effects are controlled via the simple fact that we have hundreds of thousands of pages and even more forum posts, and only so much can be done by one person. CNN's image can be more damaged because the single contributor's view defines so much more of the station, as they typically have hour-long shows or more, a much greater proportion. if they have a weekday show for only an hour, and most viewers are viewing then, they're holding a lot more attention.

edited 24th Jan '12 6:14:49 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

CNN just doesn't give a shit.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

My understanding of political contributors in America, as this is the direction in which the conversation seems to be going, is that it's not really political contribution: it's more politics in the style of the Jerry Springer show.

This is not good, and it shouldn't be allowed without some kind of watchdog making sure that broadcasters are being responsible about what they put on the air. It should be about deliving independent journalism of the highest order, it should be about encouraging conversation about a wide range of isses and current events, it should be about educating and information - not preaching.

This is the problem of for-profit broadcasters when it comes to politics. To do it right you cannot just pick a side and pander to them, because that's neither reporting nor commentating - it's advertising, it's fictional programming, it's not an actual political discussion or informed opinion.

edited 24th Jan '12 6:23:55 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

I wish so much that I had been here for this debate. Alas, I was not. Everyone made very good points and had very educated postions...

Don't make me destroy you. @ Castle Series