Attack of the Fringe
The most recent flaps in the media are swirling around a joke by Roger Ailes, a joke by Ann Coulter and an opinionated slight by Bill Maher. Ann Coulter and Bill Maher regularly slam the liberals and conservatives, respectively. Maher has a visceral dislike for President Bush and Ann Coulter everything liberal. In return, they are dragged through the talk show circuits and their every word dissected, defended or drubbed. They are accustomed to this and they regularly engage in these fits of name calling to establish their credentials as “important” purveyors of intellectual insight. The world will forget what they said in two weeks time.
Roger Ailes, on the other hand is the head of a news organization, and the entire Democratic Party has decided that it is not appropriate for such a person to share opinions or thoughts, especially in a joke. In this contentious society, the listeners will hear what they want to hear and will use it to their end. All Democrats heard an attack on Senator Obama; and used the opportunity to press the dreaded Fox News. Frankly, I thought the joke was more about President Bush and his potential for confusing Obama and Osama. Never mind; the point is that all news organizations have an opinion and an agenda. For the Democratic Party to boycott Fox and the Nevada debate is just silly.
Liberals hate Fox because it is viewed as right wing and biased. Conservatives hate CBS for hatchet jobs on 60 Minutes and other programs. The New York Times is a world class newspaper with a liberal editorial bent and a slant on the news that supports its agenda. The Wall Street Journal is more conservative, and so on and so on. This does not mean we should not listen to or read these sources. These voices are part of the entire American political and social fabric that makes us great; in fact, you are probably worse off for not hearing both sides. It is important for readers and listeners to understand and appreciate the intent of the article, the politics of the writer and the source of the material. If you really want unbiased news, you had better go witness things on your own and decide for yourself. I suppose the alternative is the Economist magazine – the closest thing to unbiased written reporting I have ever seen.
To object to one side or the other is the prerogative of the reader; just as it is of the writer. However, to exclude or deny such sources will only serve to “purify” our social discourse further into a vanilla pabulum of political correctness that empowers inertia and inaction. Straight talk and disagreement, on a civil level, will advance our nation and result in action. Bowing to the immediate condemnation from the fringes of society, and launching attacks on the individual rather than the content, will only further entrench and polarize an already stultified debate.
Wuss
Thanks for your post. Amazing number of poorly chosen words by some of these folks. If she meant whimp or wussie, she should have said that. It was a particularly oblique reference to the comment made by Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy. Obscure enough to be lost on most of the audience. In this world of instant exposure you would think the "pundits" would know what is going to happen with their words.
Very well-written and reasoned post. I think it's a bit ridiculous that the Democratic Party called off the debate in Nevada, especially since it could have given them a voice on what they see as a conservative leaning news organization. In their absence, now there will only be the conservative editorial content, as they see it.
As for Ann Coulter, I think she's more of a character than a political commentator. What she says should be taken lightly from people from both parties, although I really don't think he latest joke was in good taste by any measure.