RUSH LIMBAUGH IN RETREAT
"I'm not a Journalist. I Don't Pretend to be a Journalist."
When will conservatives grasp the seriousness of the propaganda war? When will we stop conceding, retreating and giving ground?
Barely an hour ago, Rush Limbaugh committed what, in media terms, amounts to the most sweeping act of gratuitous, unilateral disarmament since Jimmy Carter lopped $51 billion from the U.S. defense budget without seeking comparable cuts from the Soviets.
"I'm not a journalist," Mr. Limbaugh declared on his radio show. " I don't pretend to be a journalist. ... I never wanted to be a journalist. I'm an advocate. I'm a commentator."
Why, Rush, why?
At the peak of his power, with the major networks trembling before his growing influence, Mr. Limbaugh generously assured his counterparts on the left that he has no intention of infringing on their turf. Leftist media commentators may continue calling themselves journalists, he implied. Conservative media commentators may not.
Mr. Limbaugh was reacting to a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center which found that only 30 percent of Americans consider Bob Woodward to be a journalist. Former Watergate reporter Woodward now serves as managing editor of The Washington Post. The same study found that 40 percent of respondents consider Bill O'Reilly to be a journalist, while 27 percent view Rush Limbaugh as a journalist.
Do you suppose Bob Woodward will appreciate Mr. Limbaugh's gracious withdrawal from the arena? I think not.
Just for the record, Merriam-Webster Online defines a journalist as, "a person engaged in journalism..." And what is journalism? It is, "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media..."
37 Comments:
Mr. Poe is understandably exhorting conservative intellectuals to a higher level of engagement at the level of ideas. Nothing could be clearer than the New York Times et al (this et al is huge) fight hard in this arena but hide behind journalistic objectivity.
The push for better objectivity (cut down on liberal bias) has spectacularly led to very small effect as liberal intellectuals completely ignore right-leaning media watchdog groups like the MRC, and even neutral studies.
The complementary push would be for greater clarity. In UK, for example, media outlets are better at not masking their agendas.
Fox News Channel has shows that in fact are right-leaning, but do not pretend to journalistic objectivity. O'Reilly's no-spin zone idea is a rejection of being a forum for any individual to spew "talking points", not a promise of left-right objectivity.
Rush Limbaugh from the beginning has called himself an entertainer. He's always made that distinction. He wants it all out on the table.
The New York Times "public editor" Okrent quit, I think because the integrity was just not there. The paper did not drop its objective pretense, but starkly was an advocacy outlet.
In the end, I am undecided whether Mr. Poe's suggestion is a good one. What would happen? The Conservative commentator stops the anti-pretense, the non-journalist claims? How will that flush out or change what the liberals do?
prowlerneedsajump writes: "In the end, I am undecided whether Mr. Poe's suggestion is a good one. What would happen?"
There is nothing novel or radical in my suggestion. I merely propose that we stop allowing the left to define who is and who is not a journalist.
Simply because the left says that we of the New Media are not "real" journalists does not mean we have to agree with them.
As you correctly note, newspapers in England have traditionally identified themselves quite openly with political factions. There are Labor papers, Tory papers and so on. No one bothers to affect a false political neutrality. And no one questions that the editorial staff who toil at those publications are journalists.
stop allowing the left to define who is and who is not a journalist
Got it. Words have meaning. Whoever effectively controls the meaning sets a standard. It takes energy to oppose the cumulative effects of what the Left has done with words.
I'm reminded of when Bill Gates began working in the phrase "Windows NT as a form of Unix" into his public statements. It worked.
The MahaRushi is a great man with talent on loan from God!--We owe him much!
However, like all men they have flaws, and are less than perfect.
Anyone with an I.Q. above a stump knows that all things human are personal, and political.
He should not, EVER, in his position as it relates to our War with these "sons of Robespierre" give them anything they can use against him, or his ideology.
He is getting a well meaning Rightminded E-MAIL, with Mr. Poe's post attached!
For mainstream journalism, Rush sometimes seems to be the elephant in the room. The man does have the star power to bring an issue to the front and center. And it can be a vital issue that animates conservatives and others. But it amazes me sometimes when the MSM ignores it. I know why they do that, but why ostensibly do they not pick up on it, treat the issue as a part of the national debate?
As an example, when SCOTUS, surprisingly to me, upheld the Campaign Finance Reform Act, I know that many people including myself felt it as a blow to the gut. The First Amendment failing to protect political speech. Rush expressed it eloquently on his program. Given the resonance among probably millions of people, why ostensibly did the MSM utterly fail to cover that angle?
prowlerneedsajump writes,
"Rush expressed it eloquently on his program. Given the resonance among probably millions of people, why ostensibly did the MSM utterly fail to cover that angle?"
Well, they give nothing to the anti-Christ of their misfit, monolithic ideology!
Rush doesn't support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent. In other words you are against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand.
Rush doesn't believe that the same public elementary school teacher, who can't teach students how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids "sex education" and how to put a condom on a cucumber
Rush does not believe the AIDS virus is only spread by a lack of government funding and not by having anal sex.
Rush does not buy into gender roles being artificial but being gay is natural.
Rush does not believe, as Bob Meyer and many libertarians believe, that pornography is a constructional right but Religion is not.
Again, Rush does not believe, as Bob Meyer and many libertarians believe, that public homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and public manger scenes at Christmas, crosses in schools, the Ten Commandments in public should be constitutionally banned.
Rush does not believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the sons of mahound, and North Korea.
Rush rightfully knows that global temperatures are less affected by driving gasoline propelled vehicles. then by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun.
Rush knows for a fact racial quotas are indeed racist, but that standardized tests are not.
Rush knows Ted Kennedy is unfit for the Senate because he waited 9 hours to report his car accident while Mary Joe suffocated in the car under the water. He made the first 16 phone calls to everyone but the police (during the nine hours) and the body could not be autopsied because his aides had it removed to Pennsylvania from Massachusetts.
ONE THING THEY WILL TRY TO GIVE HIM IS A JAIL SENTENCE, FOR THE FEAR OF RUNNING OUT OF WHAT HE NEEDED TO PREVENT PAIN!
Limbaugh is being both honest and honorable in refusing the claim that he is a journalist.
That doesn't mean that he doesn't perform a journalistic function when he reports facts and draws conclusions from them. It means that he will not constrain himself by having to present the arguments of both sides or having to interview famous people. Limbaugh does report facts. For many years he was the only media source for certain kinds of facts, but he wasn't, and isn't, primarily a journalist.
Just because the New York Times lies about its journalistic "integrity" and is little more than the Democratic Party house organ doesn't mean that the very concept of objective reporting must be further mutilated by insisting that everyone that reports a fact is a journalist.
Limbaugh rarely has guests and then it is only to allow friends the use of his microphone to present their views. He doesn't pretend that it is anything else, unlike the vapid Sean Hannity who promotes his puff pieces with Republicans as "interviews".
Limbaugh is clearly the most talented talk show host in history. He not only re-created the opinion oriented political talk show but has topped the list of talk show hosts for over fifteen years.
The strangest thing about Limbaugh is that he is not really a talk show host! He is more akin to nineteenth century lecturers who were paid simply to speak for several hours. Robert Ingersoll used to command an extraordinary fee of $3000 per lecture back in the 1890's despite the fact that most people hated him because he was an agnostic.
Rush's show does not depend on anyone but himself, the callers are only there to give him a break and provide a foil for him to present his views. I find myself turning off the radio when he starts taking calls because the callers are usually very dull compared to Limbaugh.
Mr. Meyer writes: "Limbaugh is being both honest and honorable in refusing the claim that he is a journalist. ... he will not constrain himself by having to present the arguments of both sides or having to interview famous people."
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The very notion that journalists are required to "present the arguments of both sides" is itself a falsehood conjured up by the media establishment in order to cloak themselves in an aura of magisterial authority.
Consider the many contradictions inherent in this idea.
In the first place, who decided that political opinion can be neatly divided into two opposing views? There are always far more than two sides to any issue.
Take the War on Terror. Hawks and doves alike support or oppose the war for a kaleidoscope of different reasons. There is no single hawk position, no single dove position.
Paleocons and many libertarians oppose the war because they view it as an imperial adventure which will harm America in the long run. Many leftists oppose the war for the opposite reason -- because they fear it might help America.
How does a journalist covering the war give equal time or even passing mention to all the manifold points of view held by Americans? He cannot. And so he makes an arbitrary judgment that opinion on the war falls into two neat categories, pro and con, whose purest representatives can be found in the pages of the Weekly Standard (neocon hawks) and The Nation (New Left doves).
What about everyone else?
Any journalist crazy or presumptuous enough to pretend that he will "present the arguments" of all major political camps (just the major ones, mind you) is setting himself up for failure.
To define a journalist as a reporter who presents "both" arguments is to foster the lie that only two sides exist which are worthy of consideration. On the other hand, to define a journalist as a reporter who presents all the important arguments is to define journalism out of existence, because it cannot be done.
Even if it could be done, what purpose would it serve? Why should I appoint myself to speak for The Nation, The Weekly Standard or anyone else, when they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves?
Mr. Meyer writes: "Just because the New York Times lies about its journalistic "integrity" and is little more than the Democratic Party house organ doesn't mean that the very concept of objective reporting must be further mutilated by insisting that everyone that reports a fact is a journalist."
Objectivity is essential to good journalism. However, let us be clear on the meaning of objectivity.
In my view, an objective person is one with a fair and open mind. Objectivity does not require that we become blank slates without opinions, in the manner of Robert A. Heinlein's "Fair Witnesses."
A perfectly "objective" microbiologist would refrain from developing vaccines or antibiotics, because the very desire to develop such things rests on the assumption that human life is more important than viral or bacterial life.
Thankfully, microbiologists do not apply "objectivity" to the moral, political and spiritual dimensions of their work. They embark on their work with the clear understanding that they represent the interests of the human race. They limit their objectivity to purely scientific questions.
Likewise, journalistic objectivity should be limited to the purely utilitarian purpose of determining what is true and what is not true. One applies objectivity to specific problems of research and deduction, in order to avoid factual error.
Objectivity does not demand that journalists refrain from taking sides on political issues.
This thread updates Plato's The Sophist and undertakes a dialectic search for The Journalist. In The Sophist, the Stranger takes as a given that philosophers are committed to the truth but sophists, having an interest in the result, dabble in untruth disguised as truth.
We have the Platonic category "Truth-tellers" to which both Rush Limbaugh and Bob Woodward belong. This category can be split into "Advocates (commentators)", and "Journalists."
Mr. Poe's microbiologist can be engaged in deciding what to study or produce, or can be engaged in pure, objective science. The first is more oriented around Truth as The Good, the second around Truth as The Facts. Both activities are necessary for the work, but one or the other is more emphasized in a given context.
Rush expends his efforts in editorializing. So does Woodward, but claims greater legitimacy by identifying with the journalizing. The problem would be lessened if we put greater stock in the "Truth-teller" aspect of what they do.
The distinction taints editorialists as sophists; richly deserved, by the way, in the case of New York Times editorialist Paul Krugman.
Mr Poe wrote:
In my view, an objective person is one with a fair and open mind. Objectivity does not require that we become blank slates without opinions, in the manner of Robert A. Heinlein's "Fair Witnesses."
Agreed, but objectivity does require that one present facts that may not be consistent with one's own views. For instance, if someone does a piece on the failure of socialized medicine in Canada it would be biased to withold the fact that most Canadians approve of their system and want it improved, not abolished.
Why Canadians endure such an abominable system and believe that economic laws can be violated with impunity may reflect on their character or intelligence, but it doesn't change the fact that most Canadians don't want it abolished.
All I want from journalists are facts, all of them, not just those that support the reporter's view. I shudder at a world reduced to "Hannity and Colmes" where every statement is conditioned by whether it helps or hinders some political cause or other.
Continuing the microbiologist analogy, if a microbiologist withholds facts from his grant application because it might imply that his research will be fruitless, he is not only being unobjective, he is committing criminal fraud.
When a reporter withholds fact from his readers because it would be bad for a political candidate that reporter is also committing fraud but of a more serious kind.
The very notion that journalists are required to "present the arguments of both sides" is itself a falsehood conjured up by the media establishment in order to cloak themselves in an aura of magisterial authority.
I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Poe. Sometimes the other sides - not always singular, as you rightly point out - is too loopy or nutty to waste valuable space on.
For example, here is this fine piece about the results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy, courtesy of Newsday.
Note the lack of any commentary from the other side, which would probably have to have consisted of people wishing to combat the scourge of activist coroners. ; )
J
Mr. Tremlett writes: "For example, here is this fine piece about the results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy, courtesy of Newsday.
"Note the lack of any commentary from the other side, which would probably have to have consisted of people wishing to combat the scourge of activist coroners."
Mr. Tremlett, I fear your choice of Newsday to make your point has caused your joke to fall a bit flat.
Three former circulation managers of Newsday were just arrested by federal agents for criminal fraud -- specifically for inflating that newspaper's circulation figures.
Yes, I know. It's a cheap shot. Simply because Newsday lies about its circulation figures does not necessarily mean that it lies about the news.
But these arrests underscore a fact about our society which I have noticed you consistently underplay in your posts -- the degree of corruption which afflicts even some of our most honored institutions.
I previously wrote about the macroeconomic forces driving the Terri Schiavo case. Mrs. Schiavo's court-ordered death set a legal precedent for a profound change in our medical culture -- a change that can save Western governments trillions of dollars in medical and other entitlements that would otherwise have gone to support aging baby boomers in their retirement.
See my blog entry, "Soros and Schiavo" (MBC, 03.26.05).
With that kind of money at stake, if you think fixing a coroner's report presents any obstacle, then you are dangerously naive about the degree of corruption in our society.
Mr. Meyer writes:
"All I want from journalists are facts, all of them, not just those that support the reporter's view. I shudder at a world reduced to "Hannity and Colmes" where every statement is conditioned by whether it helps or hinders some political cause or other."
Mr. Meyer, it is physically impossible to report all the facts. Moreover, it is not even desirable. Any attempt to report "all" the facts and nothing but the facts would be to abdicate one of journalism's most important roles, which is to summarize and simplify complex issues for a mass audience.
Some of the most important issues of our day, such as the precarious position of our financial system, defy the understanding even of most journalists. A recitation of raw financial data would be useless not only to a mass audience but even to most educated elites.
The only realistic way to report on the looming crisis in global finance is to open the field for those reporters knowledgable enough to tackle the issue and allow them to argue for their various points of view. Some will argue that there is no crisis at all. Others will argue that the greatest depression in human history is imminent.
If these reporters write in plain English and back up their arguments with facts, the average reader will have no trouble making an informed opinion on the matter. But not all will draw the same conclusion, nor should they, since it is impossible to know for sure whether a depression is coming until it actually arrives.
Mr. Poe,
I thing we are arguing apples and oranges.
In cases like economic depressions there are no generally accepted cause and effect relationships. Here, I agree that it is best to let the reporters each provide their own arguments and facts to back up their predictions.
However, in more clear cut cases where the causes and effects are understood it is important to acknowledge facts detrimental to your own position.
The best example of what I mean is Geraldo Rivera's coverage during the debate on giving the Panama Canal to Panama. He openly admitted later that he and other reporters deliberately concealed the fact that the Panamanian dictator (Torillos?) was the biggest drug dealer in the western hemisphere. They did so in order to facilitate the transfer of the canal.
When I said I wanted all the facts, I didn't mean everything connected to the subject however tenuously. I meant everything relevant to the subject.
Unless we want to abolish the distinction between journalist and advocate we need to demand that journalists not conceal facts.
Take your case of hawks and doves on the Irag war. More important than the philosophy of the advocates are the facts from which they purport to draw their conclusions. A "dove" only presents the death toll and the number of homes without electricity and ignores the new schools, the improving economy and the new freedom that Iraqis enjoy. Likewise, a "hawk" insists that the war is going well and ignores the changing tactics of the enemy and their resultant effectiveness. As advocates, I have no problem with this.
A reporter is obligated to present all of these facts or, if he is unwilling to do so, he must re-label himself an advocate.
Mr. Poe wrote:
With that kind of money at stake, if you think fixing a coroner's report presents any obstacle, then you are dangerously naive about the degree of corruption in our society.
I grew up on the streets of New York and I don't think that naivete is my problem. I don't doubt that a coroner's report could be fixed but to do so would accomplish very little.
There were two levels of debate involved. One level dealt with the law, whether Terri Schiavo was in a "Persistent Vegetative State" and what were her wishes in the event she entered a PVS.
The second dealt with whether or not the law itself was immoral, i.e. whether or not a person could rightfully choose the conditions under which they would be allowed to die.
The coroner's report has no effect on the second, and most important level of debate. In Seattle there is a very popular afternoon commute radio show where the host asked if anyone's mind was changed as a result of the report. I didn't hear a single caller say "yes".
While a coroner's report might be fixed there will always be some evidence of the tampering. This means that there also is the risk of the fraud being exposed. Would such a risk be reasonable if the effect of the report was so small?
Wouldn't Soros be better off simply buying legislators? It would certainly be easier and safer.
As we diagnose ills and failings of the existing press, it is not helpful to lay them all at the feet of too little or too much distinction between journalists and advocates.
Being flat out dishonest, for example, is not acceptable behavior. When we see it in people purporting to speak the truth, we should not be reticent to call them on it. When systematic dishonesty occurs not due to the lack of virtue on the part of an individual, but is enabled by groupthink, as in the MSM, we should still call them on it.
Mr. Meyer eloquently praises the virtues of straight news reporting that eschews undue filtering. To sloganize it: "we report, you decide." We hope that to the extent possible, relevant facts are sought and reported.
My take is that this describes a standard which we should continue to apply to straight news reporting. We must nonetheless get straight news from several sources, because it just is the case in life that there is no neutral journalistically objective point-of-view, just as there are no neutral news consumers.
The myth of journalistic objectivity is exploited, knowingly and unknowingly, by the present-day practitioners who share a groupthink tendency amazingly well "reported" by Kenneth Minogue in Journalism: Power without responsibility.
Journalism under freedom of the press has succeeded in a very imperfect way to help preserve our liberty. The above-described objectivity, though a virtue, has not been the major factor in this success. In the end, I vote with Mr. Poe that the term "journalist" should be used more broadly and Mr. Limbaugh is one.
The paparazzo wrote,
"For example, here is this fine piece about the results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy, courtesy of Newsday."
Mr. Poe states,
"Three former circulation managers of Newsday were just arrested by federal agents for criminal fraud -- specifically for inflating that newspaper's circulation figures."
and,
Yes, I know. It's a cheap shot. Simply because Newsday lies about its circulation figures does not necessarily mean that it lies about the news.
Albert Einstein indited,
"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with the important matters"
OF COURSE MR. POE, AS USUAL YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, NEWSWEEK CANNOT, NOW, BE TRUSTED, AND THEREFORE LYING ABOUT THE NEWS IS IRRELEVANT.
P.S. What you wrote Mr. Poe is wisdom, and does not involve a cheap shot whatsoever.
With respect to the Terri Schiavo coroner's report. Only one marked by credulous, unaffected simplicity would accept the findings stated, when a independent Coroner was shunned from Terri Schiavo's Autopsy!
PINELLAS PARK, Florida, April 4, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bob and Mary Schindler were denied their request that an independent coroner and noted forensic pathologist be present at the autopsy of their daughter, Terri Schiavo. The results of the autopsy - carried out by Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin - will not be available for several weeks. Terri's body was cremated Monday.
Terri Schiavo died Thursday morning after 13 days of starvation and dehydration subsequent to a stop-feeding order from her husband Michael and Pinellas County probate judge George Greer.
The decision to prohibit Allegheny County, Pa, coroner and pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht from observing the autopsy was released by Dr. Thogmartin's office. The release of autopsy results is being coordinated by former Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice. Michael Schiavo is a jail nurse employed by the sheriff's department, according to an Empire Journal report.
P.S. "Persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state is a clinical diagnosis," Michael De Georgia, head of the neurology/neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, says. "It cannot be confirmed by autopsy."
Also, an autopsy report is only as good as the person doing it. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 3 EXTREMELY WELL THOUGHT OF PATHOLOGISTS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS--I SAY TO YOU CULTURE OF DEATH-ITES-- BULL CRAP!
Yes, I know. It's a cheap shot.
It's worse than that: it, added to your willingness to jump behind the conspiracy theory duckblind at the drop of any hat, could be construed as little more than a complete avoidance of the issue of your own journalistic credibility in the matter.
Likewise, your claims that I'm being "naive" for refusing to subscribe to your brand of paranoia are a pathetic noise compared to the sound and fury of your previous commentary on the Schiavo case.
I'll be interested to hear any concrete evidence you can muster up to prove that the autopsy was faked, or else unduly tampered with. Barring that, I'm going to assume the stark silence we have enjoyed from Frontpage/DTN on the coroner's report, as of my writing here, is the sound of goalposts shifting behind editorial doors.
J
With respect to the Terri Schiavo coroner's report. Only one marked by credulous, unaffected simplicity would accept the findings stated, when a independent Coroner was shunned from Terri Schiavo's Autopsy!
If the parents had picked another coroner to come in and observe, or take part, then that coroner wouldn't have been "independent," either, now would he?
J
OF COURSE MR. POE, AS USUAL YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, NEWSWEEK CANNOT, NOW, BE TRUSTED, AND THEREFORE LYING ABOUT THE NEWS IS IRRELEVANT.
Is Newsday affiliated with Newsweek?
J
Paparazzo gets cute and says,
"Is Newsday affiliated with Newsweek?"
Mistake! I meant to write Newsday.
However, I am glad you brought them up.--DO YOU TRUST PEOPLE WITH BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS, THAT LIED TO SELL COPIES OF MAGAZINES!--I sure as hell do not.
This post has been removed by the author.
The following is you paparazzo,
"There is little new in Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report. But the salivating, overt, belly-shaking glee of the Deatheaters, that might be new.
This blog nails it!
Mr. Meyer writes: "There were two levels of debate involved. One level dealt with the law, whether Terri Schiavo was in a `Persistent Vegetative State' and what were her wishes in the event she entered a PVS.
"The second dealt with whether or not the law itself was immoral, i.e. whether or not a person could rightfully choose the conditions under which they would be allowed to die."
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Had the law been followed in Mrs. Schiavo's case, there would have been no controversy. Mr. Schiavo would have been denied guardianship, on the grounds that he had financial and other motives which were obviously contrary to Mrs. Schiavo's interests.
Any homicide detective will tell you that if a person dies under suspicious circumstances, close family members are always scrutinized first. They are automatically assigned to the suspect list.
If the victim is a married woman and it is found that her husband is estranged and living with another woman, the estranged husband is moved immediately to the top of the suspect list. If it is found further that the estranged husband stands to gain financially from his wife's death (as did Mr. Schiavo), then, in the ordinary course of events, he becomes the target of a serious homicide investigation.
Mr. Schiavo's appointment as his wife's guardian violated every standard practice of law and common sense.
Consider the ongoing case of the parents who have effectively lost guardianship over their chld because they hesitated to follow doctors' recommendations that the child be given radiation therapy in addition to the chemotherapy he had already received. In the blink of an eye, the parents were declared unfit to make decisions for their own child.
By contrast, Mr. Schiavo made many decisions over the years to withhold treatment from his wife - decisions that many doctors have argued greatly harmed her. Moreover, he placed her in a hospice, even though she suffered from no terminal illness. This is against the law. Every judge who upheld Mr. Schiavo's right to keep his wife in a hospice knowingly and willfully violated the law.
Mr. Meyer, so many laws were broken in this case, so openly, and by so many different judges - actions that included the defiance of a Congressional subpoena, and the ordering of local police to use deadly force, if necessary, to prevent Mrs. Schiavo's removal from the hospice by duly appointed officers of the state of Florida - that only corruption on a massive scale can explain the phenomenon.
To speak of questions of law in this case is to ignore the utter collapse of law that it truly represented.
Those who argued for Mrs. Schiavo's death constantly reminded us that thousands of people found to be in persistent vegetative states are taken off life support every year, with no particular fuss being raised. They are right.
Mrs. Schiavo's case became a national issue precisely because it represented a divergence from normal procedure. It appears that certain elements of the legal and medical establishment decided to make her a test case for dramatically increasing the arbitrary power of judges to order a person's death, with or without legal justification.
Attempts by the press to frame the debate as a conflict between rational bureaucrats and irrational religious fanatics was a familiar "divide-and-conquer" gambit.
No church or sect of which I am aware opposes the right of any person to make a living will with a "do not revive" clause. Mrs. Schiavo left no such will. The mass media's relentless focus on the "right to die" in their discussion of Mrs. Schiavo was a red herring. Some were fooled. Others were not.
Among those who were not fooled was Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, who I believe is an atheist like yourself.
Mr. Poe, you nailed it and then some!
GOD BLESS YOU SIR!
Mr. Poe
The Florida law has a poor standard for determining whether or not a person wishes to be allowed to die under certain pre-determined circumstances. If you want to change this law to one requiring a living will, or several witnesses to the same statement then I would support you.
Had a motion been filed to vacate Judge Greer's order on the grounds that the standard used to determine Terri Schiavo's wishes was improper and would result in the deprivation of life without due process I would probably have supported it.
However, changing the criteria of proof was not the aim of the Randall Terry crowd that had somehow wangled its way into this controversy. By turning this into a "judicial murder" issue they guaranteed the outcome. They could not hope to win but then I really don't think that they wanted to keep Terri's body breathing. I suspect that they wanted to provoke an armed revolution against judicial orders as a means of ending abortion.
This is part of why I said that the autopsy report had no significant effect of people's views. If Terri had signed a declaration in front of thirty witnesses, videotaped herself signing it voluntarily and then posted copies of it on the internet would it have changed anyone's position? Or would the argument simply change to "How do you know she didn't change her mind about dying after she became incapable of communicating?"
As for conflicts of interest - Surely Randall Terry's group had a conflict of interest since they aimed to use Terri Schiavo as the poster girl for ending right to die laws, and in their weird thinking, end abortion as well. Conflicts of interest are more than just financial.
Furthermore, "do not resusitate" orders are routinely signed by next of kin who stand to inherit money. Should everyone close to a patient be automatically be excluded from signing DNR orders? Who then will make the decision? Random strangers? The state?
To say that "so many laws had been broken" requires you to believe that at least a dozen judges (not counting the US Supreme Court that refused to hear the case) were involved in a conspiracy to ignore the law. This goes far beyond corruption, it would mean that we live in a totalitarian state. Do you actually agree with Durbin and the other anti-American critics that our country acts like Nazi Germany?
If you believe this then do you also believe that Guantanamo is a gulag?
You can't have it both ways. Either this is a great country with some serious problems, or it is rife with secret conspiracies dominating every aspect of human life.
Meyer writes,
"I suspect that they wanted to provoke an armed revolution against judicial orders as a means of ending abortion."
A classic, Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force--An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion.
Meyer writes,
"To say that "so many laws had been broken" requires you to believe that at least a dozen judges (not counting the US Supreme Court that refused to hear the case) were involved in a conspiracy to ignore the law. This goes far beyond corruption, it would mean that we live in a totalitarian state. Do you actually agree with Durbin and the other anti-American critics that our country acts like Nazi Germany?"--If you believe this then do you also believe that Guantanamo is a gulag?--You can't have it both ways.
A classic illogical Bifurcation, also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy."-- Bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
Meyer states,
"If Terri had signed a declaration in front of thirty witnesses, videotaped herself signing it voluntarily and then posted copies of it on the internet would it have changed anyone's position? Or would the argument simply change to "How do you know she didn't change her mind about dying after she became incapable of communicating?"
This is simply a classic Meyer non sequitur--A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.
MEYER'S POST IS A CORNUCOPIA OF CLASSIC LOGIC FALLACIES THAT COULD BE USED TO SCHOOL PEOPLE. LORD KNOWS WE COULD USE A LOT MORE LOGICAL PEOPLE IN THIS NATION!
Rightminded writes:
This blog nails it!
I think the only thing that blog entry nailed was the author's lack of understanding of human biology, and how dehydration really affects it.
Perhaps the Anchoress should make sure her chain isn't kinked up in knots.
as for Mr. Poe...
* You say Mr. Schiavo stood to gain money? And yet, in 1998, Michael Schiavo offered to donate the settlement money to charity, so long as the feeding tube could be removed. Her parents refused
Plus, if he was really just in it for the money, then why didn't he hand her over to the person who offered him a million dollars to release custody of Terri to him?
(And speaking of being in it for the money - did you know that the Schindlers have sold their supporters' emails...?)
* Michael Schiavo was living with another woman, yes. Guess who told him he should see other people? Terri's parents, while they were all still on speaking terms.
Maybe they were thinking in advance and trying to set him up? OOps! There I go, being paranoid. Bad J - no donut.
As for the police being tasked to stop other police from coming in to stop her court-ordered removal... would those be the ones Jeb Bush dispatched to take advantage of a "wrinkle" in the law?
In that case, we have police trying to uphold the law, as decided by the court, with another group of people trying to take advantage of the loophole in it because they disagreed with the decision. Not quite a conflict, given that everyone was acting in accordance with the law, but I wonder how you'd have felt if Michael Schiavo's people had been the ones trying to take advantage of a legal loophole to stop a contrary decision?
On the subject of flipping things around: you challenged me, on a previous thread, to imagine my words resonating in the ears of my victims?
So I want you, now, to imagine yourself leaning into Mrs. Schiavo's ear and whispering:
"Terri, I sentence you to about ten more years in this decaying husk of a body because allowing your wishes to be fulfilled would make George Soros a lot of money.
"I deny you the sight of your God because it's better for my America if you rot here, against your will.
"Heaven can wait, dearie, but don't think you're choking on darkness for nothing! We're doing this because we want to promote a culture of life."
Yeah, that sounds really good to me.
And when are you going to confront Michael Schiavo in person and tell him he's a murderer? I'd like to arrange a videotaping of this event.
Again - I task you: address this issue, now that the autopsy report is out, with the same prestige, placement and gusto that you did in the time leading up to Mrs. Schiavo's death.
Had it been the other way around, and it had been proven that there was hope for recovery, and she hadn't been in a PVS, I have no doubt that Michael Schiavo's face would now be keeping company with Jane Fonda and Al Franken on Frontpage, with the word MURDERER smack across his mouth.
Put some money where your own mouth is, Mr. Poe. It may not be required of your dictionary definition of "journalist," but it's what separates the worthwhile ones from the worthless.
J
paparazzo states,
""think the only thing that blog entry nailed was the author's lack of understanding of human biology, and how dehydration really affects it."
The dehydration sure as hell affected Terri, it killed her!
Show me the brain scan before she stopped getting food and water, as well as the after death brain scan.
Yes, but the shrivelling they were talking about was what was caused by her brain atrophying, rather than it being shrunken in her skull by dehydration.
And as for the scans, what was all that about saying "please"...?
J
Mr. Meyer writes: "To say that `so many laws had been broken' requires you to believe that at least a dozen judges (not counting the US Supreme Court that refused to hear the case) were involved in a conspiracy to ignore the law."
Yes, that is precisely what I claim. Why would you find that surprising?
Traditional rights and liberties are being abolished across the board, in many areas of our lives, by judicial decisions. Haven't you noticed?
I long ago lost count of how many federal judges have ruled in recent years that the Second Amendment ensures no personal right to keep and bear arms, and that the Founders never intended that Americans should have such a right. These rogue jurists are rewriting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers before our eyes. And the Supreme Court consistently refuses to make a definitive ruling on the matter.
Astonishing, isn't it?
Mr. Meyer writes: "You can't have it both ways. Either this is a great country with some serious problems, or it is rife with secret conspiracies dominating every aspect of human life."
I must be missing a hidden subtext here. Why do you imply that believing in America's greatness precludes the possibility of believing that subversives and Fifth Columnists of various stripes threaten our liberties? Why must it be one or the other?
Mr. Meyer writes: "I suspect that they [the right-to-lifers who defended Terri Schiavo] wanted to provoke an armed revolution against judicial orders as a means of ending abortion."
Ah, so it would seem that I am not the only person on this thread who believes in conspiracies.
The difference between us, Mr. Meyer, is that I don't dismiss your conspiracy theory as innately irrational or unpatriotic. I simply disagree with it.
Dear Mr. Tremlett:
When you first appeared on this blog, I accused you of being a troll, a charge which you strongly and indignantly denied.
So I gave you a second chance. I put you on probation, so to speak.
For some time, it appeared that you were making an earnest effort to comport yourself like a gentleman - an effort which I very much appreciated. But I notice that your mask has begun slipping of late.
Your extremely ungracious response to an apology which I offered you on a previous thread was telling. To wit:
Poe to Tremlett: "It had been my impression that contempt for religious faith informed many of your posts, either explicitly or implicitly. However, if you tell me that you do, in fact, respect religious believers, I will take your word for it and offer my apology for presuming otherwise."
Tremlett to Poe: "Well, that's what you get when you assume, Mr. Poe - egg on your face and a plate full of crow. Now, aren't you glad you made that comment in a blog post's comment train instead [of] in a blog post?... I'll accept your apology, Mr. Poe. I'm also going to seriously challenge you to assume less about people, if only so you can avoid having to apologize about things like this in the future."
Good grief, Mr. Tremlett. Were you raised in a barn?
Now, concerning this present thread, please compare the tone and intellectual quality of the discussion before and after you entered it (not to mention the subject matter, which you steered in a dramatically different direction).
Mr. Tremlett writes: "I'll be interested to hear any concrete evidence you can muster up to prove that the autopsy was faked, or else unduly tampered with. Barring that, I'm going to assume the stark silence we have enjoyed from Frontpage/DTN on the coroner's report, as of my writing here, is the sound of goalposts shifting behind editorial doors. ...
"Had it been the other way around, and it had been proven that there was hope for recovery, and she hadn't been in a PVS, I have no doubt that Michael Schiavo's face would now be keeping company with Jane Fonda and Al Franken on Frontpage, with the word MURDERER smack across his mouth."
These statements are telling, Mr. Tremlett. They speak to your underlying motivations.
As you are surely aware, my editorial authority extends only over Moonbat Central, not over FrontPage or DTN. Mr. Horowitz alone wields the power to set editorial policy at the two sites you named, and it was he who personally and very publicly posted the picture of Al Franken with the word "RACIST" over it.
I am forced to assume then that your challenge is directed not so much at me personally, as at David Horowitz.
What's your game, Mr. Tremlett? Why are you here? Why do you spend so much time hanging around this blog?
Mr Poe wrote:
Interesting. So it would seem that I am not the only person on this thread who believes in conspiracies.
The difference between us, Mr. Meyer, is that I don't dismiss your conspiracy theory as innately irrational. I simply disagree with it.
Thinking the Randall Terry had ulterior motives is not believing in a conspiracy. Fighting the case on the grounds that "right to die" laws are immoral is one thing, fighting it on the grounds that it constitutes "judicial murder" is something that makes no sense unless you intend a revolution.
I could find no other explanation consistent with the "judicial murder" defense.
I don't dismiss conspiracies as inherently irrational unless they are self-contradictory. The judicial conspiracy theory lacks sufficient evidence, but is not self-contradictory.
The fact that no judges disagreed could mean that either Greer's rulings were well within established legal principles or that the judges conspired to ignore the law.
I read most of the decisions and numerous commentaries on the decisions but I found nothing to indicate that Greer could be faulted on either the facts or the law.
I therefore rejected the conspiracy because there was no evidence for it and considerable evidence that Greer's decisions were in no way extraordinary.
What disturbs me most is that there have been no moves to change the standard for proving intent in the Florida law. It is a poor standard that invites abuse.
I believe that a person has the right to die, but that he must demonstrate his intent in a clear, unambiguous way. The only function that the state should have is to assure that a person's wishes are carried out.
If you are wondering, yes, I believe that suicide should not be illegal and that physician assisted suicide should be accepted.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As moderator, I extend to you my apology for allowing this discussion to disintegrate into childish taunts, witless sophistry and irrelevancy.
The responsibility is entirely mine. It was my job to control disruptive elements such as Mr. Tremlett, and I failed in that duty.
Sadly, I sense it is too late to return to our original discussion on the nature of journalistic objectivity. That debate was throttled in its cradle.
However, those who wish to continue discussing the Schiavo case may do so on a new thread, which I have provided for that purpose here.
Mr. Tremlett, if you cannot comport yourself like a gentleman, please refrain from posting on the new Schiavo thread - or on any other Moonbat thread, for that matter.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home