Monday, October 25, 2010

How do people change their politics?

One of the more interesting comments to come out of the Juan Williams brouhaha (as opposed to a foofarah) is this one  by Doctor Zero, "Juan Williams And The Preference Cascade". A "preference cascade" is a phrase he borrowed from Instapundit himself, Glenn Reynolds, and the good Doctor defines it thusly: "a preference cascade occurs when people trapped inside a manufactured consensus suddenly realize that many other people share their doubts." That consensus might be "manufactured" in a variety of ways, some crude, some subtle -- e.g., a crude totalitarian surveillance, or a more subtle social imposition of "right thinking" -- but however it's done, it becomes increasingly fragile under circumstances that undermine it, including, obviously, those who question it. At some point, there need be only a small event, a single voice, to trigger the "preference cascade" that suddenly shatters the consensus. Doc Zero's contention is that Williams was fired because he threatened to be that voice, with the firing intended to shore up the consensus by sending the message that such sentiments, such "feelings", cannot even be expressed within the confines of the bien pensant liberal orthodoxy that NPR symbolizes.

Whatever the case may be with respect to this episode, however, I think the idea of a preference cascade is a handy one, in the way it can be used to explain fairly sudden, and otherwise quite surprising, changes, not only in political groups, but within individuals as well. It's not just a social consensus, in other words, that gets undermined or hollowed out by disconfirming events, it's also one's own overt beliefs. One can continue to think of oneself as liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing, even as one's opinions about this or that particular issue are the opposite of one's long-standing self-labeling -- until something occurs, and it may be quite small in itself, that precipitates a kind of internal cascade, and the old labels just don't seem to have the same relevance any longer. It's why change sometimes seems to come in lurches.

50 comments:

  1. Not on your exact point Meta, which is an interesting one and on which I wrote a separate post, but fwiiw, here's my view of the Williams thing:

    Wehner: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/377426

    Me:

    I think the worst thing Williams, who wears his mind and heart on his sleeve, did was be, possibly, inartful. Williams's point was that even though Muslims on a plane in full garb scare him, Muslims are not generally to be castigated or treated differently than other Americans.

    So the issue is whether to make that point he should have indulged the revelation of his own biases. I can see that being argued both ways.

    Williams could have made the same point differently without, at least possibly, insulting an entire and massive group of people. Jesse Jackson said once that he's sickened by the fact when he sees a group of people walking toward him on a city street (at night?) he's relieved when he sees they're white. That has been compared to what Williams said.

    But I wonder whether a white journalist on nationally broadcast forum could with impunity say what Jackson said just to say how he felt or, like Williams, to go on and make a bigger point. I tend to think not, having to do with American racial sensitivities, even though the two cases are logically comparable.

    Another example: could a non Jewish broadcaster say, "My first impulse when I meet Jews is to feel alienated from/revulsed by/vomitous towards, them, but I overcome my instinctive, wrongful feeling and compose myself and go on to treat them and act towards them like I do with any one else"?

    I'm not sure where the line is between confessing dark feelings to make a bigger point that brackets them or to simply disclose them and saying something unacceptable by reasonable broadcast standards.

    In any event, inartfulness, if that it was, is not a firing offense and it seems clear to me that NPR's excuse for firing Williams was tendentious, and in my view had to to do with him undermining the NPR brand by his coziness with and on Fox.

    That to my mind is shameful.

    And in these regards I think Wehner is right

    ReplyDelete
  2. I take your point that "inartfulness" isn't, or shouldn't be, a firing offense, and it may well have been his "coziness" as you put it with Fox that underlies the firing, but the fact remains that it was his simple statement of honest feelings that was the reason given. And I disagree with the characterization of those feelings as in any way "dark" or "irrational" as so many good liberals -- no doubt including Williams himself, ironically -- hasten to tack on. If, as you say, the Jackson comment and a similar one from a white journalist -- and I think, by the way, that Susan Estrich is supposed to have said something along those lines -- are "logically comparable", then, logically, it's the attempt to deny such feelings that's irrational. (Your Jewish example isn't in the same ballpark, since it's irrational in the way that simple bigotry has always been.) If we let ourselves be morally bullied by the PC police to the point that even the expression of rational fears inspired by a whole raft of real-world events and threats is verboten then I think we're creating a kind of Soviet-lite culture where feelings and expressions of all sorts must be run by internal political censors before we risk exposing them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well let me push back for a minute. In my Jewish example, the speaker expresses some initial feelings, but goes on to say they're wrong. Let's tame the initial feelings to something like uncomfortable or anxiety-making to not lapse into polemical absurdity. I have trouble seeing the difference between the expression of that discomfort or anxiety and Williams's statement which, on his own reflection, is ultimately one of discomfort and anxiety which he then goes on to conquer. I can't see the Jewish statement passing broadcast muster. Why not? Williams has his reasons for his initial feelings. So does the speaker about Jews. Both feelings get gotten past by Williams and the speaker to the expression of a sentiment of equality and tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. a preference cascade occurs when people trapped inside a manufactured consensus suddenly realize that many other people share their doubts." That consensus might be "manufactured" in a variety of ways, some crude, some subtle -- e.g., a crude totalitarian surveillance, or a more subtle social imposition of "right thinking" -- but however it's done, it becomes increasingly fragile under circumstances that undermine it, including, obviously, those who question it

    Or, hysteria, in other more direct language. First there was the hysteria of the PC liberals in regard to Williams' fairly benign but unprofessional remarks, and the "I wuv NPR" rants (PC liberals not to be mistaken for authentic democrats, however rare they may be). Then, the Fox news flagwavers and jingoists like O'Reilly picked up on it: those dirty red bastards at NPR--they fired a good guy who was merely speaking his mind! Thus forgetting that NPR had every right to fire him (I don't really care for NPR (or PBS), but they're hardly radical but ordinary, bland corporate product. They offer regular investor and business news). NPR could have fired him for wearing the wrong suit, most likely. Monsieur "bien pensant" is mostly a straw man. There was no correct, rational thinking--there were reactions, media craze, another scandal to sell ads.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meta, thanks for the cross post. You're a fine fellow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...Thus forgetting that NPR had every right to fire him...

    Not necessarily, depends on his contract, but, in any event, not hardly the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. p.s.

    "Preference cascade" = "hysteria".

    In more direct language, not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, J's just doing his usual "everybody's hysterical/crazy/corrupt/evil/etc/ but me" routine.

    Re: your push back, Itzik, I think, with all due respect, that it misses the point of rationality -- what sorts of fears, anxieties, etc. are reasonable, i.e., a product of, as I said, a whole rash of recent events and threats, and what are not? (And I hope we don't get into just another relativist quagmire which would erase the whole notion of irrational bigotry.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wrong again, and your typical reduction to the personal (ie, ad hominem). The corporate media should not be mistaken for the people, anyway. Scandals sell ads. It was probably planned by both NPR and the Foxbots (prove that it wasn't...). And Conspiracy--the libertarian's fave!

    Williams would have most likely signed a contract which prevented him from saying those sorts of things while on the clock. Even if he didn't, NPR has termination rights, as with any business. His comments don't offend me, but ...sort of stupid--though Williams' stupidity was surely outdone by O'Reilly and Co's hysterical reaction (not to say war-mongering).

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't mean to be personal, J, but your comments are all over the place -- who says "corporate media" should be mistaken for "the people"? Who says NPR doesn't have termination rights? What "war mongering"?

    It would be a useful exercise if you tried, just for a change, to focus on a point and make it without the usual froth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. They're not all over the place. You generally accept the word of media celebrities as truth, when the Truth is quite more complex and sinister. As far as war-mongering, when O'reilly starts barking about "muslims attacked us" --as he did when Williams was on the show--that's it. And the point however cynical holds: scandals sell ads (as does flag waving and war-mongering).

    I sort of grant Dr Zero's point on dissent, but not for the reasons he gives: In a totalitarian society, the dissenter fears that if he speaks up, his will be a lone voice, easily squashed by the enforcers of the regime. When dissenters realize they are not alone, and the true strength of their numbers becomes apparent, “invincible” regimes vanish with astonishing speed.

    That would be nearly acceptable, except for the absurd implication that Foxnews, O'reilly, Williams, Teabaggers, Palin, GOP et al are the noble, oppressed minority who have dared to protest those evil "bien pensant" liberal hordes. The Right has hardly been defeated--they look to gain more power in the upcoming elections (tho not as much as expected). Fox rules TVland as well, and, like, quite a few people recall Fox's role (tho assisted by other media giants) in stirring up support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and the "WMDs" etc. Depicting Fox and the TeaParty and the millions of yokels who support them as a quasi-french resistance like organization--in Penn JilletteSpeak, that's nothing but Bullshit.

    Williams may have had a point. But when he joined up with the likes of Fox and O'Reilly he lost most if not all of his credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Assuming that Williams's contract with NPR did indeed allow NPR to fire him for wearing an ugly suit, or for "inartfulness" (and I agree that his remarks were FAR more inartful than derogatory toward Muslims - where does he say AT ALL that the presence of Muslims, in or out of traditional Arab garb, actually warrants his anxiety?), NPR's big mistake here was to go all high-horse. Instead of figuratively covering their eyes with their hands, shaking their heads, and quietly firing him, with an accompanying public statement that implies, "Poor Juan, he just isn't up to our standards of public expression any more - can't keep up with Ira Glass, don't you know," they drew themselves up in high dudgeon and pointed their corporate finger at him: "Heretic! Begone!"

    Thus revealing their basic intolerance for all to see. I'm just hoping everybody's paying attention.

    And during pledge-time too! They're perhaps the world's worst spin doctors where their own affairs are concerned. (But has anybody noticed what they do and don't broadcast about Williams's actual remarks? Every time I've heard NPR talk about what he was fired for, it was "comments about Muslims" or "against Muslims." He said the word "Muslims," but his comments were about himself, and his anxiety was NOT against Muslims but rather existed in spite of his conviction that Muslims shouldn't be singled out in the way that, viscerally, he found himself doing.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. No quagmires, but a different point: whether or not fears are rational or irrational is not necessarily the issue, though I can see how it might be.

    My point is that both speakers get beyond their fears/anxieties--reasonable or not--to express a better and laudable sentiment. If Williams's negative starting point--his fear aroused by any Muslim, however tha fear may be understandable--can be the predicate for his broadcasted better angels, why can't the non Jewish speaker's, whose instinctive anxiety might be born of a 1,000 understandable causes, be a similar predicate?

    Again, I understand the point you're making in distinguishing the two cases, but I'm not convinced that your point is to the/my point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J, I don't think members of the (ahem) TEA Party (again with the sexual slurs... give it a rest) believe they're an "oppressed minority." That's kind of the point of them: they're not looking for victimhood. Why would you want to see them wanting you to see them that way?

    Tortured construction on purpose. I don't know you at all, but many in my camp see many in (what I infer is) your camp not only employing MAJOR projection, but being completely unaware that you're doing so. Everybody projects sometimes; the trick is to use the instances in which you find yourself projecting to learn something - about yourself or about the one onto whom you're projecting your thoughts and motives.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ...Even if he didn't, NPR has termination rights, as with any business...

    You are confused. Any employer can "fire" an employee. That's a right in a weak or attenuated sense of right. If an employer fires an employee without right--what's called wongful dismissal--that employer is answerable in damages. The latter wrongful firing is hardly an exercise of a right. You are mixing up the weak sense of the termination right with the strong sense of it. The strong sense is manifest when an employer rightfully fires an employee, i.e. with cause. In that instance, the employee--in vindication of the employer's rightful termination entitlement--has no remedy, no claim for damages.

    Employment law 101, first 15' of first law school lecture.

    Okay?

    ReplyDelete
  16. you're confused itzik, and mistaking legal rhetoric for ethics or political policy as well. Even assuming it's contractual, Williams probably violated some clause he agreed not to violate, like make generalizations about ethnic groups (even if the comments were fairly tame). If not, why doesn't he hire some hotshot attorney and sue for wrongful termination? Since he didn't, we can probably assume he did violate the TOC, and can't sue--or perhaps we might speculate about the financial motives of all involved--increased fundraising for NPR, increased ratings for Fox, more exposure for Williams, etc--the old Win Win! Maybe you can offer a mini blog-lecture on the Win Win too Iz.

    Jamie--you may note I responded to Doc Zero's clever or shall we say disingenuous points on dissent. The TP has gone far with this sort of quasi-subversive schtick--Beck in fact started the TP, did he not, wearing breeches, a wig, quoting Thomas Paine--hardly a TPer, but liberal. But the GOP/TP spinmeisters have now appropriated the left's schtick. That's Doc Zero's sort of marketing ploy--"let's act sort of like the counterculture did in the 60s, pretend to be radicals, argue for dissent, etc--overlooking the fact they have boo-coo corporate and military support, and are mostly religious fundamentalists. Palin for instance is a BP gal from way back. Big Oil and the DoD own the GOP ...and TP (well along with baptist church, mormons, etc) . I have little love for the Demos but that's just pure manipulation--Breitbart tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jamie: Instead of figuratively covering their eyes with their hands, shaking their heads, and quietly firing him, with an accompanying public statement that implies, "Poor Juan, he just isn't up to our standards of public expression any more - can't keep up with Ira Glass, don't you know," they drew themselves up in high dudgeon and pointed their corporate finger at him: "Heretic! Begone!"

    I agree, and just wanted to point out that that's entirely consistent with Doctor Zero's contention that they didn't just want to get rid of Williams -- they wanted to make an example of getting rid of him for expressing these forbidden emotions (in order to forestall a "preference cascade", etc.). But maybe that's what you were saying anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry? Glenn Beck started the Tea Party? Even Wikipedia disagrees with THAT.

    I'll concede that some of us on this side of the aisle are appropriating the "dissent is the highest form of patriotism!!1!" thing that was thrown at us for eight long years... but the GOP gets no free ride from Tea Partiers. (I'm not one. I am Republican, but I'm dissatisfied with the party's rascally spending. In that respect and certain others, I find common cause with Tea Partiers.) Tea Partiers, at least for the present, do have a realistic view of their electability: they hope to get as many Tea-Party sympathizers elected as possible, of course, but where they don't have committed candidates, they'll typically go Republican rather than cede the ground to the party that has NO historical background for or apparent interest in smallifying government. Not protest-voters, these: they've seen the damage that can be done when too many people decide to "teach their party a lesson" by voting for the other guy. (And also when too many people fall for a cult of personality, but that's another issue for another year.)

    But where on earth did you get the idea that they're "mostly religious fundamentalists"? I'm sure some are, but Tea Partiers in general seem to be adamant that fiscal responsibility and shrinking government are their only legitimate platform planks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Itzik: My point is that both speakers get beyond their fears/anxieties--reasonable or not--to express a better and laudable sentiment....
    Again, I understand the point you're making in distinguishing the two cases, but I'm not convinced that your point is to the/my point.


    Okay, I grant your point -- now back to my point.

    But seriously, folks. In the first place, Williams himself went on to express what you might call a "better, more laudable sentiment". But in the second place, I just want to resist the irrationally guilt-inducing sentiment that the honest expression of honest fears, based upon real events and real threats, is somehow inferior to or less laudable than concealing same. On the contrary, I think such concealment is a kind of cultural repression that sustains these kinds of fears, and lets them grow into genuinely irrational forms.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Furthermore Iz. the default employer contract is Termination-at-will, as any legitimate contracts law person would know --and it's not the first Contracts lecture. Probably half-way through, after the young hessians have learned the formal procedure for shaking hands, a bit of legalese and various loopholes

    ReplyDelete
  21. Metamorf, I agree completely that that's what they were trying to do. But my point was that it was a STUPID thing to do - at least under current circumstances (pledge time, election season), because it called stark attention to the fact that an organization that's supposedly the last bastion of tolerance and civil discourse... isn't.

    Which is why I think they don't give out the full text of Williams's remarks, when they're broadcasting on the subject of his firing. His remarks were not hateful nor derogatory; they were the pretty anguished musings of a man to whom many Americans, and not particularly "right-wing" ones, can relate. But by characterizing his remarks as "Williams's comments about Muslims, over which he was fired for violating NPR's ethics rules," NPR maintains - among its listeners who have not seen or heard Williams's actual words elsewhere - the fiction that he was a raving bigot who had to be purged to keep their collective progressive soul spotless.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry? Glenn Beck started the Tea Party? Even Wikipedia disagrees with THAT.

    Scroll some older youtubes.The TP took off with Beck's Paine schtick--really, a great lie, given Paine's opposition to theocrats, conservatives, the very powerful.

    But where on earth did you get the idea that they're "mostly religious fundamentalists"?

    Maybe Mama Palin chanting along Rev Hagee, Beck etc? You really don't understand the roots of the TP. A few of them may have a naive libertarian ethos, "don't tread on me," etc. But most are just moral majority GOP types, probably fed up with the GOP fat cats.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Then why hasn't Williams filed the wrongful term. suit? Probably because he knows he'd lose (if he agreed to abide by "ethics rules"). Just another pseudo-event.

    What's not a pseudo-event is O'Reilly's daily war-prayer and muslim-bashing. That's like bordering on sedition (like most of Fox, though one could probably say the same of any of the big time networks). Holy Big Brother batman

    ReplyDelete
  25. Everyone but J probably knows that Tea Parties got started after a rant on CNBC by Rick Santelli. But I should point out that J has a general Conspiracy Theory orientation regarding names, movements, events, etc. that don't favor his vaguely leftish, anti-"the powerful" beliefs. He's certainly not alone in that, which may be of some comfort to him.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jamie/J (?) you're an idiot.

    I will only reinforce my point by noting that the only reason an employer can fire an employee not for cause is that courts will not specifically enforce contracts for personal services. Hence damages as a remedy in lieu of specific performance.

    Other than noting that I have no interest in speaking with you. Kindly confine your comments to our way too indulgent host. I will do like- wise.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If J and Jamie are 2 different people my apologies to the other one.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jamie: But my point was that it was a STUPID thing to do....

    Yes, and good point re: the suppression of his actual remarks. Whatever they were trying to do, it's obviously blown up in their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Itzik, Jamie is distinct from J, in all ways.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. NO you're the idiot, Itz, and don't understand jack about labor law ( Im not an attorney thank Deus, but know a bit about L-law). The employer calls the shots in any normal job--there is no contract, except implied, and what the employer specifies (which usually includes..."can be fired for whatever reason"). Even if someone does a good job he can be fired for any reason. Or no reason--a lay off . Most labor attorneys won't even touch cases where a worker has not been on the job under 5 years, and often not even then. Plus it's not a trial by jury, deep thinker. So the judge--or at times a panel-- can throw cases out for hardly anything, which they do.

    It's a moot point anyway, given the "ethics rules" which NPR required Williams to abide by . Plus the fact that he hasn't apparently decided to file suit. Then reading Itz's usual comments its quite obvious you're a sort of Rahmocrat, who sides with liberals or conservative as needed, and in this case appear to be on the side of Williams, O'Reilly and FoxCo.

    Im not the libertarian conspiracy nut, you are morf. And btw where were the CNBC, Santelli, Breitbart scum at the Beck/Palin/Hagee and palsies Tea-party rally a few months back? Nowhere. Palin's the Teaparty. That's morf's people, regardless of his usual deceptions.

    Jamie is distinct from J, in all ways. You got that right. Some of us value like Jefferson and Madison and don't value Blend Geck, Sarah Klondike, Gingrich, Fox etc

    ReplyDelete
  32. Okay, J. Jefferson and Madison were nice people too.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world,....

    ReplyDelete
  33. There you go with the character issue. I mentioned them because of their principles, not their biographies.

    And Real world, you mean like Palin for Prez, morf? The TP's choice. Or maybe the Mittster, or as some have whispered....Glennster Beck hisself! Or fundie dingbats like Sharon Angle, now vying with Reid (a hack, but about as close to a Demo the US has). Really, politics bores me, but you don't appear to know what the real American world is. This ain't Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Can't resist:

    ... The employer calls the shots in any normal job--there is no contract, except implied, and what the employer specifies (which usually includes..."can be fired for whatever reason"). Even if someone does a good job he can be fired for any reason. Or no reason--a lay off . Most labor attorneys won't even touch cases where a worker has not been on the job under 5 years, and often not even then. Plus it's not a trial by jury, deep thinker. So the judge--or at times a panel-- can throw cases out for hardly anything, which they do...

    As I said you're an idiot, proof be in the eating of this just quoted tripe of a pudding. If your other posts, which I almost always pass over, partake of the nonsense in this tripe, then you generally obsessively talk simply for the sake of talking--quite nutty--regardless of not knowing what you're talking about. You embarrass yourself.

    C'est tout pour moi.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Meta: You’ll forgive me if I have lost track of your/the point.

    I’d like to reframe the issue because I haven’t resolved it in my own mind.

    For me the issue here is broadcast standards as illuminated by Williams’s case, and, to be more precise, how much dark, self revelation ought to be permissible on conventional media, like say a show like O’Reilly’s, either for the sheer sake of disclosing the revelation or, as is more usually the case, to make a larger, *nobler* point.

    Here’s, to reprise, part of what Williams said:

    …I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts…

    On further reflection, this nods beyond inartful. It’s on the verge of being pernicious. It's also slightly, stream of consciousness incoherent. What “facts” are there in Williams’s little verbl run on: that he gets worried and anxious; that the bomber said what the bomber said? There are no “these facts” here, in fact.

    Williams said elsewhere once, I have read:

    “Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

    Williams could just easily have said—as someone else noted—“Common sense becomes racism when *religious garb* becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

    I can’t understand, to go back to my earlier example, of why this would be any more acceptable than what my imaginary non Jewish speaker said. They are comparably unreasonable statements.

    Without the saving grace of the larger, more laudable point—let’s state our instinctive immediate apprehensions to get past them—either statement is comparably problematic.

    And going back to what you said, I don’t see how one statement is more “rational/reasonable” than the other.

    The healthiness of expression as against concealment isn’t relevant, I don’t think, to the issue of what’s appropriate for mainstream broadcasting. If bigotry defines an unacceptable broadcast standard, then bigoted expression, however honest, not in the service of a larger, better point is violative.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Meta: You’ll forgive me if I have lost track of your /the point.

    I’d like to reframe the issue because I haven’t resolved it in my own mind.

    For me the issue here is broadcast standards as illuminated by Williams’s case, and, to be more precise, how much and when dark, self revelation ought to be permissible on conventional media, say a show like O’Reilly’s, either for the sheer sake of disclosing the revelation or, as is more usually the case, to make a larger, *nobler* point.

    Here’s, to reprise, part of what Williams said:

    …I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts…

    On further reflection, this nods past inartful. It’s verges on the pernicious. What “facts” are there in Williams’s little verbal run on: that he gets worried and anxious; that the bomber said what he said? There are no “these facts” here, in fact.

    Williams said elsewhere once, I have read:

    “Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

    Williams could just ea easily have said—as someone noted—“Common sense becomes racism when religious garb becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

    I can’t understand, to go back to my earlier example, why this would be any more acceptable than what my imaginary non Jewish speaker said. They are comparably unreasonable statements.

    Without the saving grace of the larger, more laudable point—let’s state our instinctive immediate apprehensions to get past them—either statement is problematic .

    To repeat, and going back to what you said, I don’t see how one statement is more “rational/reasonable” than the other.

    The healthiness of expression as against concealment isn’t relevant, I don’t think, to the issue of what’s appropriate for mainstream broadcasting. Bigotry defines an unacceptable standard. Bigoted expression, however honest, not in the service of a larger, better point is violative.

    ReplyDelete
  37. They are comparably unreasonable statements.

    No, they're not. Nor is the expression of reasonable fears, based upon such facts as Williams alluded to in his statement (e.g., that the Times Square bomber said what he said, as you simplistically mock) in any way "bigotry". In fact, this sort of usage just undermines and eventually obliterates the whole meaning of bigotry. And there is certainly nothing "dark" or shameful about an honest and clear expression of entirely justifiable fears. If, as you say, you "can't understand" that, then, with respect, I think you're being disingenuous, but there really isn't much more I can say. Except, I guess, that I'm sorry to see you putting yourself on that side of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Itzzy, the idiot's you, Kissinger-lite. Touched a nerve, eh? Maybe because you agree with Williams' anti-muslim comments, n'est ce pas?

    You don't know sh*t about US labor law--it's termination-at-will in the private sector, as anyone who's been in a professional environment knows (and any contracts law person---obviously not you-- knows). He agreed to abide by ethics rules too, bete. And yes the proof's in the pudding. Williams (who you defend, like most neo-cons) could easily file wrongful termination. Which he hasn't. So he tacitly agrees there are no grounds for such a suit.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Meta: they are; they're not; and so on, not much of an argument, I'm afraid.

    It's simply not intellectually reaaonable to go on any plane and see any Muslim in Muslim garb and conclude that anxiety and fear are the apppropriate abiding emotions, as opposed to knee jerk ones, that have to be thought through. Which, btw, the thinking through and getting over them, was Williams's point, was it not?

    Reflect on your own experience for a moment. Do Muslims in "full garb" in any Canadian seeting induce a Williams-like reaction in you. They don't in me. And if they were to, then I 'd think them through and get over them. If I couldn't do that, get over them, then I'd be exhibiting a kind of Islamophobia. Just as the non Jew who can't get past his discomfort on meeting Jews would e exhibiting aint Semitism.

    That's different from real fear--like Jesse Jackson's alone on a city street. Williams made a blanket statement---read his actual words for goodness's sake--which without the saving grace of his laudable further sentiment, would have been of a piece with bigotry, by his own definition, as I have already noted.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And there is certainly nothing "dark" or shameful about an honest and clear expression of entirely justifiable fears.


    OK, and were Williams just an ordinary joe, it wouldn't be a big deal. But he's a high-powered media celebrity, who agreed to abide by ethics rules--and he was an employee of NPR, with various supervisors. Unlikely there's a union, or union rep. who would support him, or any sort of grounds for claiming unjust/wrongful term. regardless of what Doc Itzy says, or suggests, or rambles on about.

    In other words, it's just another media scandal, probably ...orchestrated (maybe by Williams hisself, since he seems to have benefitted from it via Fox contract).

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's different from real fear--like Jesse Jackson's alone on a city street.

    Okay, at least we can agree there is such a thing as "real fear" (as opposed to your Jewish example) -- and I'd hope we could agree that it isn't only members of the same race that are allowed to have or express such "real fear".

    You're right that this isn't much of an argument as it stands. I just think, in light the fact that, in the last decade particularly (but not only), we've seen a large number of events in which Muslims, acting as Muslims, in the name of their faith, have perpetrated mass slaughters throughout the world, and have repeatedly threatened to perpetrate as many more as they can, that this gives rise to entirely understandable fears, especially in vulnerable situations such as air travel, on the part of ordinary, reasonable people -- not as visceral a fear as Jesse Jackson's perhaps, but just as real.

    ReplyDelete
  42. By the way, nobody I know of is questioning NPR's right to fire Williams -- the questioning has solely to do with their judgment and bias in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Was NPR's supposed poor judgment and alleged bias sufficient cause for a lawsuit from Williams? Not likely, or he would have already hired some pricey attorney (one that knows like labor/employment law up and down--alas, that counts out poor Doc Itzky). It's a done deal--the Teabaggers have already milked it dry.

    Next media scandal, comin' up.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In case anyone's wondering, I think J. is sort of trying out for a role vis-a-vis the left similar to the one Stephen Colbert plays for the right -- kind of an idiot, but occasionally funny, and indirectly illuminating.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Jeez, thanx. Not exactly--like Itsky, you don't seem to understand the labor issue. NPR can do whatever they want, more or less, especially if they had Williams agree to ethics rules. So, not much to discuss, but williams errored (perhaps greatly) in sidling up to Fox.

    I'm not a leftist as in PC marxist sort, but ...Harry Truman or JFK demo. Perhaps you recall the Rawls discussion (who you don't quite understand either). I still value the US Constitution (unlike many demopublicans), Due Process, Reason broadly construed--not the case among most of postmodernist left. And New Deal. These days, however, the dingbat Right consider someone like Harry Reid a "leftist". Reid's not perfect but I agree with most of his political principles (not all, by any means). Deus help us if people like Sharon Angle come into power.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Of course there is “real fear” in the sense of being reasonably grounded. The former was never our issue, whither the latter as reflected in the front end of Williams’s statement, and particularly as judged by broadcast standards, is. And we agree on the “isn't only members of the same race” point.

    But on the *precise point* of what Williams said, his *exact words* as quoted by me, without redemption by later statements, we’ll have to disagree, though I will defend to the (metaphoric only) death your right to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ... I will defend to the (metaphoric only) death your right to be wrong.

    As I will yours. I'll admit to some puzzlement over "broadcast standards", to the extent they're something over and above George Carlin's list, but am content to let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  48. J, how do NPR's "ethics rules" actually apply here? I'm sure you've heard the Nina Totenberg/Jesse Helms/AIDS thing by now; why didn't they immediately apply those "ethics rules" to her much more inflammatory comment? I've heard the NPR head state that Williams violated these rules, but I have yet to hear anything that explains coherently how these rules apply to his particular statements.

    I heard that she asked him if he would have said the same thing on the air at NPR, and he said he would have. I also read that the ethics rules in question specifically refer to commentators' not saying things outside NPR's purview that they would be unwilling to say while on an NPR program. Seems to me that Williams was consistent: he didn't say anything on Fox that he wouldn't have said on, say All Things Considered. That leaves his comment's being something that NPR believes NO ONE should be allowed to say on NPR, which - given that Totenberg really set a new standard for appalling sleaze with her little giggly AIDS thing - seems like a rather ideological category of comment: you MAY say whatever you want about the Religious Right, but Gaia have mercy on your soul if you dare to question the great principle of multi-culti equivalency. In other words, they can't explain how Williams violated these ethics rules, because to do so makes their hypocrisy explicit rather than just obvious to anybody paying attention.

    Which is why (I say again) NPR was stupid to fire him the way they did - making it an "ethics" issue, even in the face of much more serious ethical lapses by other commentators, rather than a "Williams shooting off his mouth" issue. It only showed their stripes; it didn't silence Williams nor point out any fallacy in his comments.

    But they had to execute their purge... because that's they way they do things on the Left, apparently. Oh, my people!

    ReplyDelete
  49. You seem to think I'm defending NPR. Im not. Like most Teabaggers, GOPers, and bonehead conservatives you have this idea of non-conservatives which is, like, Bullshit. ID politics. Noam Chomsky's not Rachel Maddow. Harry Reid's not ACORN, etc. There are all sorts of differences which you overlook. (granted liberal morons often do this sort of reification with the right as well, relying on cheap ID politics and assuming a sort of commonality which is not there. WF Buckley was not Glenn Beck or Breitfart).

    I don't pay attention to NPR scandals; don't care for Totenberg--though anyone who defends that dead redneck Jesse Helms defends the Klan, more or less, and big tobacco (oh, wait, one of vegass-libertarians allies). NPR's hardly the "left". Centrist-liberals. They offer business news, so forth. I listen to them maybe a once a year. So, fire Totenberg. Either way, it's the supervisors call. The Foxbots and TPers who cry foul about Williams' termination seem to be suggesting that management should work via polls or something. Another line of BS.

    Williams' comments were unprofessional. That seems sufficient to violate the ethics rules. Then, O'Reilly and Beck's daily rants are unprofessional as well, if not sedition.

    ReplyDelete

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>