| Author |
Message |
    
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 458
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:23 am: | 
|
Intellectual Liberal movements are so keen to quash Christianity, and protect every OTHER religion, they are willing to sacrifice that which is most sacred in this country which is our Free Speech/Free Press. I'm still very upset that our own press failed to step-up to bat and stand beside our European compadres.
CHAMPAIGN, Illinois (AP) -- An editor who chose to publish caricatures of Prophet Mohammed in the University of Illinois' student-run newspaper last month has been fired, the paper's publisher announced Tuesday.
Acton H. Gorton was suspended, with pay, from The Daily Illini days after the Feb. 9 publication of the cartoons, which sparked Muslim protests around the world after they first appeared in a Danish newspaper.
At the time, Daily Illini publishers said the action was taken against Gorton not for publishing the cartoons, but for failing to discuss it with others in the newsroom first.
The Illini Media Co. board of directors, which comprises students and faculty, voted unanimously to fire the editor after a review "found that Gorton violated Daily Illini policies about thoughtful discussion of and preparation for the publication of inflammatory material," according to a statement.
Gorton has said he sought out advice from The Daily Illini's former editor-in-chief and others before deciding to run the cartoons. He has said that accusations he tried to hide his decision were wrong.
On Tuesday, he called his firing a blow against free speech on college campuses.
"If I can be fired, what will other students think who maybe want to challenge the status quo?" said Gorton, who had briefly addressed a board meeting the previous night. "This is a bad precedent."
Gorton said he intends to sue the publishers of The Daily Illini, citing, among other complaints, unlawful dismissal.
Board member Adam Jung said he is confident the company "has acted properly on this issue."
The paper's opinions page editor, Chuck Prochaska, also was suspended for his role in publishing the cartoons. He declined to be reinstated, the board said.
Prochaska said he and Gorton moved quickly to publish the cartoons because they were newsworthy.
"We had a news story on our hands, with violence erupting about imagery, but you can't show it because of a taboo, because of a taboo that's not a Western taboo but a Muslim taboo?" he said. "That's a blow to journalism."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5337
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
Firing a dude over a cartoon isn't the death knell of US journalism. What's killing the profession is shoddy work habits, loss of what the mission of a journalist is (which is to tell us what happened), inaccuracies and overt bias coming to the front page rather than leaving it on the op-ed page. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4531
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
cjc's right, too many media outlets just publish the press release, or blithely print whatever talking points they've been fed, without doing any analysis or fact-checking. After all, who cares if a story is or is not published if you have no reason to believe it's accurate to begin with? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
All that's happening is the illusion of disinterestedness is evaporating.
On another note, journalism itself might be disappearing altogether. It's being replaced by talking about the news (perfected by Fox) and nihilistic political analysis (perfected by the Sunday morning shows, but evident everywhere). |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5951
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
News divisions are perilously close to being under the direction of the Entertainment division at some networks. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 459
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
All that stuff too....
But this wasn't just any old firing...it was firing of the editor of a Campus/Student news paper, not an entertainment outlet. This firing deomonstrates that PC (as it applies to Minority religions only) has penetrated so deeply into our society that College Student editors must now respect this. So long are the days where our students could be counted on to fight hardest for Freedom, liberty and rights.
(By the way, we all know this editors publications would have been widely applauded and circulated around this country, had this been a scathing critique on Evangelism or Judaism instead. Unfortunately, Al Queda, Bin Laden, Zarqawi and Hamas have succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of the American Intellectual Liberal) |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4533
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Of course student newspapers have always been under the thumb of whatever administration they were under. These publications aren't independent media outlets, they are campus functions just like a dramatic production or a sporting event. So they are and have always been under a different standard.
That said, double standards and hypocrisy are as american as apple pie, I guess. I read in the news yesterday that Isaac Hayes is quitting "South Park," apparently because they did an episode that made fun of Scientology. "South Park" has always been an equal-opportunity satirist, so it's disappointing to see someone be just fine with mocking catholics, jews, muslims, Satan, and God; but not with mocking Tom Cruise and John Travolta. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5341
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:30 am: |
|
dave23 -- I disagree that Fox-type broadcasting is replacing what used to be news. They're not doing opinion journalism aside from some winking and nodding. They're just shoddy. Katrina turned out not to be what they said it was (outside of a royal screw-up). The port story had important information becoming widespread AFTER public opinion had already crystalized. And CBS....need I say more? One reporter does a half-baked job, and the next reporter just repeats it with some other nugget attached to the end. They're reporting how they think the story should go, not how the story goes.
Combine all the cable news audiences and you end up with virtually no audience compared to what the Big 3 still manages to reach. O'Reilly on his best night reaches 2M, and he's not even news.
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
cjc, From what I've seen on Fox, they don't do any journalism at all. I don't even think they qualify as shoddy, since no reporting is actually done (save for when a pretty girl gets killed in a foreign land). That said, people like O'Reilly's viewers consider what he does as news.
The Big 3 still trump cable, but the trend is away from them as their audience literally dies off. Does anyone under the age of 30 sit and watch the news at 6:00? CNN used to be okay, but they've gone really soft. One important statistic is that CNN.com is very popular. The Internet may replace both the newspaper and TV and the primary source of information in 20 years. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 830
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
And Drudge becomes even more influential. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 393
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Smarty et al,
I disagree that the firing of an editor represents the death knell of journalism or even a serious blow to free speech. It is the publisher who holds the right to free speech, not the editorial staff. In the case of the Illinois student newspaper, the role of publisher is fulfilled by the board of directors who fired the editor.
At the risk of sounding like one of Antonin Scalia’s minion’s, the intent of the First Amendment is to allow anybody to publish his own opinions. It is not to allow editors to challenge their publishers. If an editor or writer doesn’t like the publisher’s philosophy, he can (theoretically) go out and publish on his own. As a practical matter, that was probably a lot easier in colonial times, when publishing meant generating a few hundred copies of a pamphlet.
But the underlying philosophy still holds: if you want to express your opinion through the media, you need the blessing and cooperation of the publisher. And to accomplish that, you may need to become your own publisher. Hence, as Southerner observes, outlets like the Drudge Report become influential and trusted.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 6:08 am: |
|
 |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 463
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 7:47 am: |
|
Bottomline....you've taken a far too theoretical approach to what actually transpired. College Paper publishes Cartoons.....(yes, CARTOONS) that everyone is nervous will offend the scary muslims. Student editor gets fired because culture of today's news media is too avoid criticizing ANYTHING but our own government or Christianity (it is no longer vogue to criticize Tyranny, Communism, Oppression as is demonstrated by high regard Castro is held by our Liberal elite). Strong message is sent reminding our students to get in line, by firing student editor who published CARTOONS.
When Charlie Chaplin did his Nazi charicatures, they were well recieved and are a memorable part of the history of the effort to stand up to what the Nazi's were trying to do to the world (not entirely unlike what Militant Muslims wish to do). It's unfortunate that the grown-ups in power refused to defend and stand next to the students of this newspaper who took a simple stand for journalism, for our European newspaper comrades, and against Islamic oppression. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 395
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
There is nothing theoretical at all about my approach. The publisher always controls the content. If you don't like what The Daily Illini newspaper did, you can hoof it on down to Champagne, Illinois, and start your own paper. Your right to do so is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
To me, this is a classic First Amendment conundrum. When someone makes a reactionary political statement such as the one at hand, there is a natural tendency to view it as a blow to the institution of free speech rather than an exercise of the right of free speech.
As for your reference to Chaplin, his work would never have seen the light of day without the cooperation and blessing of the movie producer. The producer decided that it was in his political and/or financial interest to support Chaplin’s performances.
Finally, my own personal political view is that the publishers of the Illinois student newspaper are spineless slugs for what they did. It induces me to have no respect for the paper, although I never had any knowledge or opinion of it beforehand. But I do support the publisher’s right to say what they want and to control what is printed in their newspaper.
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5962
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
Smarty...to dismiss the work in question as CARTOONS also diminishes the message. For hundreds of years cartoons have been the vehicle for dissent and satire. Chaplin was basically just a living cartoon.
As for the message being sent, I think there is a different standard at a university newspaper. Not that I am excusing the firing, but the newspaper is ultimately responsible to the publisher as bottomline said, and in this case that publisher is actually the university. As such, the university has the final say. Firing the student editor was an unfortunate choice, but Universities in the US are not the bastion of liberty they once were. International competition for students and intra national competition as well, has forced universities to become businesses, to a degree. They are responsive to market forces and the donation of alums...and thats the rub. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:00 am: |
|
Southerner,
I don't know how influential Drudge is anymore. His status certainly unique and he can help drive a story. But 99% of his material is from other news sources. He can help focus a story, for sure, or highlight a "missed" story unlike any other site. But he definitely peaked during the glorious Monica era.
As popular as he is, his numbers are notoriously inflated because he has a meta-refresh every four minutes, meaning if you visit his page and leave it up for 15 minutes while you are doing something else, your time there will count as 3 visits. (Thus his numerous "coming soon" announcements, which prompt users to leave his page up and/or hit Refresh frequently.)
|
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3616
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
POLITICAL CARTOON:
-S. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4537
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Nice boob job. Did she pay for it with her bribe money? |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5968
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:18 pm: |
|
c'mon tom...you can do about anything in photoshop now-a-days. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I know  |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5975
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
That's exactly what I mean!!!
But beware the wrath of Sbenois |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2665
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
"By the way, we all know this editors publications would have been widely applauded and circulated around this country, had this been a scathing critique on Evangelism or Judaism instead."
Such a startling stupid comment pretty much ends the possibility of taking this dope seriously. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 464
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:42 am: |
|
themp, your one contribution to this thread is to cut-and-paste my statement, and then call me a name? Namecalling on a webforum? Is this an AOL Jr. High chatroom? Are you that incapable of producing one intelligent thought or response that you surf around seeking opportunities on this forum to call people "dopes"? You must have a ridiculously high opinion of yourself, the mysterious blogger known as themp, to think for a moment that people care who and who you don't declare to be a "dope". I quake in my boots awaiting the next painful name you will choose to call me.
Duncan, you are absolutely right...I shouldn't have implied that cartoons are harmless, as witnessed by the deaths and violence that occurred across Europe and Asia in response to the publications.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2668
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have written that. It's just that sometimes I have to suspect that people are not speaking from their own hearts, but reciting some set of talking points. For instance, you link "liberalism" with anti-semitism in you post. That is a standard conservative playbook move now.
The conservative press in xenophobic northern Europe posted provocative, insulting cartoons about Muslims. Why should we do that? All the sudden conservatives are all about demonstrating free speach regardless of outcome. You guys are worse than the lefties who yell "censorship" when funding is denied to provocative art.
Do you really think the mainstream media celebrates attacks on judeo-christian faith? I work in the media, and let me tell you, I sure don't see it. I don't recall any anti-jewish cartoons running in the NY Times lately.
 |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Smarty,
How about some concrete examples of "the media" criticizing Christianity? |
Chalmers
Citizen
Username: Chalmers
Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:30 pm: |
|
I know a few of the people involved in this situation, and it's a little more complicated than it has been portrayed.
While reasonable minds might differ about this case, I can assure you that the decision makers are very concerned about free speech and have authorized the publication of all kinds of offensive material in the past.
In the AP story, Mr. Gordon says that he talked to a former editor-in-chief at the paper and "others" about his decision to run the cartoons.
However, besides Mr. Prochaska, it does not appear that he discussed the situation with the paper's board of directors, its publisher, his two fellow executive editors or any of the other editors or reporters at the paper.
As editor-in-chief, Mr. Gordon might have had the authority to overrule everyone in the newsroom had it gotten to that point.
Instead, he allowed his publisher, reporters, and editors to get blind-sided when they opened the paper the next morning and left them unprepared to answer the questions of angry students, faculty, and sources.
In the AP story, Mr. Gordon says that he did not attempt to hide the fact that he was running the inflammatory cartoons. In the New York Times story, he expands on this by saying that the pages were available in the production department for anyone to see.
However, without notice that anything unusual or inflammatory would be in the pages, there would be no reason for anyone in the newsroom to inspect the pages in production.
I think a strong case can be made for running the cartoons. However, the manner in which this publication was made, along with Mr. Gordon's subsequent statements and threats, lead me to believe that he was motivated by more than journalistic principle.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 196
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Maybe he likes cartoons, and isn't afraid to publish what the mainstream media fears to publish.
He was fearless, and not dhimmi.
jd |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 130
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
I'm curious to know how many people on this thread have been or are journalists, but two things concern me here:
First, the term "the media" is plural; the constant attack on "the media" really ought to be a debate on the practices of individual media outlets.
Second, despite all the bashing of "liberal" journalism, the almighty dollar is paramount in American journalism. And as long as that's the case, entertainment will supercede news value. Before you decry the lack of serious, fair news outlets and the general inattention to those that exist, ask yourself: When is the last time I gave money to PBS?
Sorry for the diatribe; this messenger just felt like shooting back a little.  |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:37 pm: |
|
"the media" is not plural.
"Media" is plural.
In English, the definite article has neither singular nor plural form. It is the same for both. |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Media is the plural of medium.
"The media are ...
My point, though, isn't grammar; it's that lumping together all outlets results in stereotypes and exaggeration.
(I won't pretend I can spell -- blame the Maplewood/South Orange School System! KIDDING!) |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Understand your point. I just wanted to make a grammatical stickler's counterpoint.
Frankly, I believe we can lump together all US media outlets that are commercially run--- they sound alike, often have the same stilted formats, and they don't bother to examine questions or do real issue analysis. They provide superficial fodder. You want hay--- they give you straw.
You want information--- they serve up entertainment.
IMHO. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 111
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 7:10 am: |
|
The 24 hour news cycle seems to generate an endless number of "mini-crises" to which the media must respond if they want to stay current.
This often prevents them from putting the important issues in proper perspective. Here is just one example:
Since September 11 the American public has been treated to endless yammering
about terrorism in the media. Politicians and bureaucrats may feel that, given the public
concern on the issue, they will lose support if they appear insensitively to be downplaying
the dangers of terrorism. But the media like to tout that they are devoted to
presenting fair and balanced coverage of important public issues. As has often been
noted, however, the media appear to have a congenital incapacity for dealing with
issues of risk and comparative probabilities—except, of course, in the sports and financial
sections. If a baseball player hits three home runs in a single game, press reports
will include not only notice of that achievement, but also information about the rarity
of the event as well as statistics about the hitter’s batting and slugging averages and
about how many home runs he normally hits. I may have missed it, but I have never
heard anyone in the media stress that in every year except 2001 only a few hundred
people in the entire world have died as a result of international terrorism.
This whole essay is well worth reading:
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 7:24 am: |
|
I don't think that the fabricated mini-crises (and I agree with you on that point) have any other purpose than to try to make sure viewers' eyes are "glued" to the screen (e.g., "coming up in a minute, our exclusive interview with the EMT who saved the parakeet from certain death while wrestling three terrorists to the ground..."). |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page