Why is the Los Angeles Times giving a platform to endorsements of thuggish behavior?
Last Friday, the Times ran an op-ed by controversial gay activist Michelangelo Signorile complaining that Mark Foley had not been previously outed and calling for the press to out public figures when it "is relevant to a larger story."
On the following day, the Times published a column by Meghan Daum that appeared to endorse the protestors at Columbia University who interrupted a speech by Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist and reportedly physically assaulted him (via Patterico). "[C]onsidering that most young people are considered to be politically apathetic," she writes, "you have to credit the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization for trying." And even after acknowledging that Gilchrist and others were struck in the melee, she writes, "I'll give them an A (OK, maybe a B+) for trying."
Signorile and Daum have every right to their views, but the Times is under no obligation to provide a platform for them.
"On the following day, the Times published a column by Meghan Daum that appeared to endorse the protestors at Columbia University who interrupted a speech by Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist and reportedly physically assaulted him."
Endorse what? Their position? Their activism? Alternatively, are you saying that the piece appeared to endorse the use of physical assault to deny someone free speech? It didn't appear to do that to me.
Your take on this particular op-ed and the LAT's decision to publish it (as opposed to the incident at Columbia itself) contributes to my continuing befuddlement over what you think free speech really is, why it is valuable, and how a society should go about guaranteeing it for all of its members.
Posted by: Anodyne | October 19, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Why is the Los Angeles Times giving a platform to endorsements of thuggish behavior?
It's called free speech. Sometimes it's messy, and sometimes it makes us all uncomfortable, but all too often, it's not the civil or polite voices that need to be heard. Kudos to the Times for thinking outside the box, and having the courage to publish points of view that provoke.
Posted by: Steve Smith | October 19, 2006 at 01:08 PM
I'm confused by the first piece - in what universe was Foley not "outed"? Does Michelangelo himself have to have a column on the topic published in the LA Times for it to count? That was never much of a secret, and the few people who didn't know he was gay saw him driven out of his (aborted) Senate campaign over the issue. Foley might never have admitted it in public - but there were already lots of news stories claiming he was.
Posted by: ArmandK | October 19, 2006 at 01:21 PM
Free speech is the right for everybody to express his/her views without being put in jail or sentenced to death. It doesn't mean mainstream media has a duty to make a place for any kind of opinions. Would The L.A. Times deserve so many kudos for "thinking outside the box" if they ran op-eds from holocaust-deniers, pro-life/animal-rights activists advocating murdering doctors who engage into abortion or vivisection?
Posted by: Rollercoaster | October 20, 2006 at 07:34 AM
I'm confused how this could be possibly construed as an endorsement, especially when Daum explicitly asks "where and why the demonstrators may have gone wrong."
I think we need a spinsanity for Brendan.
Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack | October 20, 2006 at 09:23 AM
That Meghan Daum piece achieves a Maureen Dowd level of unfocusedness--I simply cannot discern any contention or argument in it at all. I'll hazard a guess that her intent was to contrast activism of the 1960s and 1970s with activism today.
But it's not at all clear to me, even having read the piece twice, whether she's pro- or anti- the Columbia demonstrators.
Posted by: Jimbo3001 | October 20, 2006 at 09:20 PM
How bizarre is this post?
A) I don't see how it is thuggish behavior for the media to report facts about politicians' when relevant. Many people now believe the press should be reporting on aspects of a politician's homosexuality as they do about aspects of politicos' hetersexuality whether they want such information reported or not, because they are relevant to all or a portion of the electorate.
B) The way this is posted assumes we all agree, in 2006, that reporting on homosexuality is "thuggish" and thus something revolting, disgusting and horrible. Many journalism professors, edtors, writers, ethicists and reporters, gay and straight, have moved dramatically on this issue and agree with the sentiments expressed in the piece.
There might not yet be anything near a full agreement. But really, this point of view is not nearly as controversial as it once was. So assuming we'd all share the opinion that it was "thuggish" was naive. You need to make your case and actually address the issues and standards put forth in the piece, plus the larger issue as it has played out over the years, before you simply dismiss. Otherwise, you are the one who is thuggish.
C) Why shouldn't the LA Times print opinions that are challenging and provocative and help us to move the debate? There is nothing offensive about any individual or group contained in the piece. And no one is outed in it who was not out before, so the LA Times is not endorsing an outing but rather putting an opinion up for discussion. And again, this is not an opinion that is so "out there" anymore. Adults can make up their own minds on a concept -- and again, no individual is outed in the piece -- so why must we be so paternalistic? Why do you want to shield them from the idea? If it's a bad idea, they will decide that.
D) Signorile is a journalist, albeit one who is trying to change American journalism. And certainly in this instance he is taking on that role and identifies himself as such. By tagging him as "controversial activist" you diminish him and show your bias, and your "thuggish" behavior. You could just as well be called a "controversial activist."
Why are you engaging in spin, Mr. Spinsanity?
Posted by: | October 21, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I don't know if Gilchrist was physically assaulted though I doubt it, but I would take anything on Patterico's site with a grain of salt. He has a vendetta against the LAT and tends to portray anything unfavorable to liberals in the worst possible light.
Posted by: Paul | October 21, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Nicely played in favor of censorship, Brendan.
Posted by: Lettuce | October 22, 2006 at 11:53 PM