Andrew Sullivan’s gratuitous criticism of La Shawn Barber intrigues me. Here’s Sullivan:
Instapundit’s coverage suggests that he believes that the erroneously-sourced Newsweek story is actually more offensive and important than what happened at Abu Ghraib. A more direct expression of an even more hardline position is given by LaShawn Barber:
Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true.
Now there’s a new standard.
Yeah, self censorship is as new as discretion. It’s what I do every day. Some things I write about; some things I don’t.
As La Shawn put it:
They make judgments all the time, for various reasons, about what is and isn?t newsworthy. In a 700-word story, for example, they can?t include every single fact associated with every single event. They decide what?s important and true, what?s unduly inflammatory, etc., with every story they write.
Just yesterday, I complained about yet another pit bull story I considered inflammatory. Whatever the facts were, I just resented the story being there, and my gut feeling was that I’d rather the news media not have reported it. Why? Because people get all stirred up, they want to ban pit bulls, and it increases the pressure on people like me who don’t want their pit bulls taken away. I worry that my local board of supervisors might try to pass some horrendous law that I would have to devote precious time and resources to opposing. I also worry about people screaming and running away, about mothers snatching up their children, simply because my dog wagged her tail at them.
Is this a call for censorship? No. Read the First Amendment. (Congress shall pass no law…..) I’d die to stop the government from passing laws telling news media or citizens what they can and cannot print. But discretion in reporting? All reporters use discretion all the time. There is no such thing as reporting all news. And, inasmuch as there is such a thing as discretion, what the hell is wrong with criticizing the news media for misusing or abusing their discretion? It might take the form it did with La Shawn’s comment (that it would be better not to report certain things) or it might take the opposite form (that some things should be reported). A private citizen advocating more reporting of one thing or less reporting of another is not censorship.
Nor is it a “new standard.”
Those who slam La Shawn Barber for slamming Newsweek are saying that she shouldn’t have said what she said. Lots of people attack Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs for reporting what he reports, and they say he shouldn’t report certain things because they’re inflammatory. Is there any logical difference between that and attacking Newsweek for what it reports? Some would argue that Newsweek has a higher “duty” than bloggers, but does it? Why? Under the First Amendment, we are all equal, and we are all equally subject to criticism, both for what we discuss, and what we do not discuss. Such criticism is of course not legally enforceable, and as Andrew Sullivan showed, it can generate more criticism, and in turn that criticism can then generate its own criticism.
Speaking of pit bulls and censorship, from time to time I report on the growth and development of Coco, who I’m attempting to groom as at least a co-blogger (perhaps even my replacement). When she demonstrated her ferocious opposition to document shredding and coverups, I dutifully reported that. When she fisked the Philadelphia Inquirer, that too went into my blog.
Seasoned blogospherians have probably heard all about a phenomenon called tireblogging which was all the rage not so long ago. Well, Coco’s only a six month old puppy, and she’s just not up to speed on everything. (When tireblogging was in vogue, I don’t even think Coco had been weaned.) This made me feel a little guilty yesterday, because I was in such a hurry to replace a couple of tires that when I went to the tire store I forgot to bring either a camera or my laptop.
I hope readers will forgive the fact that I didn’t post (as I have before) about getting the tires replaced, OK? No tireblogging yesterday. Once again, I was guilty of self censorship.
But I did think to bring home one of the bad tires. You know, as a sort of leftover, like bringing food home in a doggie bag.
As this video shows, Coco was thrilled! (To play the video, click on the arrow below or try the link.)
[NOTE: If there’s too long a delay, clicking a second time seems to start the damned thing for me.]
Not only is Coco delighted to learn about tireblogging, but unless I am wrong, this is not a retread of an old idea, but a new first for the blogosphere:
pit bull tire-videoblogging!
No discretionary censorship on this one.
But Coco is a very active, very inquisitive, highly judgmental animal, and I cannot promise that everything she does will be discussed here, much less videoblogged.
For example, I have some books lying about. Some of them I don’t read much, and some of them I’ve never read at all because they’re boring translations of things that don’t make much sense to me but which I bought in the fall of 2001.
And Coco has a penchant for grabbing doggone things like books. And chewing them when I’m not around.
(Heaven forbid that she ever read about being unclean.)
Obviously, I have to censor certain things. I wouldn’t want Coco to flush with pride.
Comments
17 responses to “Chewing tirelessly on every detail?”
People object to LGF because he’s a liar and an incompetent. He’s unfair, selective, manipulative, and has no integrity. Plenty of reasons to object.
Go pits! My dog, Razor, is getting pretty old nowadays, and his allergies are terrible. Luckily, I live so close to the lake, I can take him out for a swim often enough. Otherwise he howls & scratches himself on the wall like a loon. Predisone is a godsend.
Which all goes to say: He wouldn’t hurt anybody, but he might charge up to you, trying to get a scratch behind the ears, above his tail, etc. People just don’t get dogs.
RE: David’s comments on LGF-
It appears that _all_ of those same labels could be arguably applied to Newsweek. Both have their boosters, though.
What do you mean, “manipulative”!? The Mossad can cajole artists in Vieques, in the name of “LOYALTY oath”? Social Security reform, indeed!!! Smirk can talk about “liberty and justice for all” all he wants, all the while INTIMIDATING kittens in Guantanamo!!!
Such a cute dog! If you tie that tire to a tree Coco can jump up and grab it and swing off it. My little poi dog loves it when I swing her around while she bites her chew toys.
cheers!
David Howe: While the unsupported comment attacking LGF speaks for itself, I’m telling you for the last time not to attack other bloggers at this blog. They are not here to defend themselves, and I am not going to play the game of defending them because someone else has attacked them.
Last warning.
The Mossad can cajole artists in Vieques, in the name of “LOYALTY oath”?
Hmm..not sure this is in our control. (not sure what that mean, actually…) There’s no Big Daddy who sez he can or he can’t.
PS Newsweek was accurate and correct. Comparing Newsweek to LGF is like comparing chocolate mousse to dogshit. They kind of look (slightly) alike, the differences are unmistakable. Clearly one is so much better than the other. Those who mistake one for the other are objectively and obviously idiots.
Facts are stubborn things. They inevitably lead you to certain conclusions. All the facts about this war, “terrorism”, censorship, and everything else only leads in one direction. It is only crummy blogs run by capitulating morons (useful idiots?) who see things any other way. The fact that you all “agree” and support each other in this Grand Circle Jerk means nothing.
Now, please enlist and leave the book-smart work to the educated adults.
As soon as y’all drag your doughy little bums to Bagdad, you’ll be taken seriously.
Translation: The US magazine “Newsweek” had to retract a story about the desecration of the Koran in the military prison Guantanamo under massive pressure from the US government. The journalists have now received support for their report from the International Red Cross.
Geneva – A representative of the Internation Red Cross said today that it has informed the US authorities that members of the American military had abused the Koran. Such cases had occurred in the years 2002 and 2003, have since, however, been stopped, said the IRC representative Simon Schorno.
Thanks, Eric. 🙂
“Terrorism”!!? I take it you haven’t read “And Who Shall Speak for the Whales,” by Ward Churchill! Since 1997, 52,910 vegans have been bludgeoned!
Thanks La Shawn! But you heard what the man said!
First, we all gotta drag our doughy little bums to Bagdad.
And Howe!
Now, please enlist and leave the book-smart work to the educated adults.
/howls of derisive laughter
lol. another person mad at LGF for Rathergate- get over it.
David Howe
Looking at your defense of NEWSWEEK, I notice you accidently left off the part of the Red Cross statement that said a koran was flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo.
That’s forgivable–I’m sure it only happened because you’re a busy guy–but also unfortunate because your entire argument rests upon that inadvertantly excised passage.
Getting our story straight
Q and O has a great post on the whole commotion over the Newsweek Koran-not-down-the-toilet incident. Dale Franks and Jon Henke get some help from a
I’m back here in Classical Values and I see that we have another Communist with us. I, for one, admire Eric Scheie and I admire Charles Johnson. I love America, Israel, and our Western civilization.
I love urinalysis Steven!