Good Tuesday morning Fellow Seekers,
Last week, after viewing a YouTube video, created by blogger and GOP operative Michael Brodkorb, of four dinky alleged “gaffes” committed by state Sen. Terri Bonoff during her announcement event, I wrote a dour but heartfelt post regretting the way this kind of cheap shot diminishes our politics. I stand by it.
Brodkorb, whom I gather is viewed as the antichrist in certain liberal circles but with whom I enjoy civil relations, then had me on his Saturday radio show to talk about his video and my post, which we did. As he had done when I interviewed for the dour post, Brodkorb continued to defend his video as “fair” and “within the bounds” of what passes for political discourse in these times. These are two very different defenses.
Within the bounds means that others do similar things and get away with it. That is true. Brodkorb had already done me the kindness of pointing out an instance in which a liberal blog, MNPublius, had published a similar attack against State Rep. Erik Paulsen, the leading Republican candidate in the very same congressional race that Bonoff just entered. That was a cheap shot too. Brodkorb, and MNPublius, and countless others who have engaged in similar cheap shots can get away with it. But there is value in calling cheap shots what they are (and I can get away with that, too).
While I was driving to the radio station Saturday (but alertly listening to the show, already in progress) Brodkorb’s radio partner, King Banian of SCSU Scholars, defended the video by pointing out that Brodkorb’s blog is called Minnesota Democrats Exposed. I take the argument to be that Democrats should not expect to be treated fairly on a blog with that name.
I guess that’s a pretty good argument and constitutes yet a third defense of the video, a we-make-no-pretenses claim that would be a powerful defense against a charge of hypocrisy or of no-truth-in-labeling. But it doesn’t constitute a “fairness” defense. On the contrary, it is a statement that Democrats should not expect to be treated fairly on a blog named Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
Fairness is a higher standard, one about which I care deeply even while acknowledging that it is hard to define and is subject to serious eye-of-the-beholder challenges. But in this case, it isn’t that difficult. Every parent who ever tried to inculcate a sense of fairness in their children knows instinctively what to make of the everyone-else-was-doing-it defense. Brodkorb, who has recently been blessed with twins, will know what to make of it when he hears it.
And, even in these times of moral relativism, I think most would not fall for the you-can’t-criticize-me-for-being-unfair-because-I-never-promised-to-be-fair gag.
If you would like to watch the Bonoff video or read MNPublius’ similar mockery of Paulsen, there are links to both on the previous post on this topic.
“Every parent who ever tried to inculcate a sense of fairness in their children knows instinctively what to make of the everyone-else-was-doing-it defense.” Couldn’t agree more. It’s a childish defense and I wish more people would grow out of it.
Where is Justice Potter Stewart when we need him, Eric? Perhaps there is a small fortune to be made setting up a web site, that for say $9.95/incident, will rank whether an item is fair or not? Results posted and seals of approval could be handed out.
I agree with you that fairness, much like common courtesy, should be the byword of all political discourse. I would hate to think that Ms. Bonoff or Mr. Paulsen would ever be judged by these types of inane presentations, but sadly, too few of our citizenry are willing to go much deeper than the last You Tube video presented to them.
Thanks for giving me a place where I can have genuine, intelligent and interesting discourse.
Fairness in “discussing” political matters is long gone, never to return. Frankly, it no longer has a place in the ongoing civil war of BushAmerica. To the extent there has been a “change” in how we discuss political and policy issues in this country over the past 15 years, I’ll let the political historians resolve it. I know which party I think dragged us into the current partisan free-for-all.
As it stands, I still don’t see the Dems being able to return the unfair fire that they receive from the Right. They are still the gang that can’t shoot, let alone shoot straight. A few hard hitting blogs from the left don’t materially change the equation. Isn’t Brodkorb’s site a well known Repub favorite, with data that frequently gets used by elected officials and journalists? He has a radio program as well, apparently. Is the same true for the MNPublius blogger that Brodkorb threw out as the “counterexample”? Perhaps someone can correct me.
“Citizens” are now wholly responsible for determining the flavor of the “news” they consume. They get to decide what “facts” they want to hear. The invisible hand of the “market” now determines whether a voter is reasonably informed or a hapless idiot. For example, conservatives have hilariously decided that the (right-leaning) MSM is “lib’ral” and a great many rightists literally will not look at it or believe it. Huge numbers of people (all conservative) think that the NYT is not a credible news source now. Or the LA Times. Or network TV news(!), other than Fox.
If a “news” organization does not openly and loudly describe and market itself as “conservative” our happy rightists simply will not sample it. As a result, surveys have shown that the denizens of the American Right are woefully uninformed and basically a pack of Know Nothings, yet with extraordinarily strong “opinions”.
This is not about to change. I think “Campaign 2008″ will take unfair and misleading attacks to even higher levels than were seen in 2004. The people have degenerated, the leaders encourage the lying and the “truth” institutions (newspapers, etc.) have decayed to the point that no one is left to halt the process. The worst thing the Left can do is bemoan the new rules and refuse to play by them. That will result in certain defeat.
“We have met the enemy and they is us”
(Pogo Possum) Walt Kelly
I think (hope, maybe) that you underrate the American voter.
I think that we saw in 2006 that there are limits to what voters will swallow (there were in the 1st District, and for the most part Bush clones did not do well in Minnesota).
At any rate, if we become just like the Bushies, what have we won?
“What benefit a man ….?”
I doubt many media conservatives share Eric’s high value on fairness and honesty. Ever since Lee Atwater, an increasingly powerful conservative faction has put partisan advantage over all other values. They only talk about fairness when they are trying to push conservative voices into media outlets. At the ridiculous end of the scale, I had an interchange with Anders with the unspellable last name, the former strib editor, wherein he explained taking on Mallard Fillmore in the comic pages because he needed a conservative strip and it was the best one he could find. My guess is this was in response to right wing complaints about Doonesbury and 9 Chickweed Lane for being liberal and demanding a conservative strip, not a good strip, not a funny one, not a well-drawn one, but a conservative one. I notice conservatives are quite willing to demand that the NYTimes put a dim-wit like David Brooks on the opinion pages in the name of fairness, but don’t seem to insist that the WSJ hire an opinion writer whose knuckles do not scrape the ground.
Nova last night covered the Dover PA conflict over Darwin in the schools; the creationists , including Bush, talk about teaching both sides in the name of fairness when the fact is there aren’t two sides: Intelligent Design is not science, was not intended to be science and cannot be turned into science. It therefore has no place in the science class room. And those morally superior folks committed perjury and sent death threats to the judge.
Look at the record of the Bush administration and tell me those people put any value on fairness or truth.