Reflexivity

The Iron Giant is a must see movie! I used it to wrap up the media violence and conflict resolution project I did at Hannah’s school with the 6th graders. It is an amazing representation of the L-T-A model – listening, thinking, acting – that we try to teach the kids. It very clearly shows that violence is not the answer to conflict (which we define simply as any time two people have differing desires about something). A review describes it as “a Cold War parable in which the Iron Giant learns from a little boy that he is not doomed to be a weapon because ‘you are what you choose to be.’”

Popularity: 1% [?]

Donna sends along this prochoice info/ad with a bit of [what she herself described as] a rant (smile):
“I don’t think NARAL has been able to afford to buy time on any of the major networks, but wouldn’t it be ‘fair and balanced’ if the mainstream media at least covered the assault on a woman’s right to choose? Instead, I see newspapers calling women’s clinics “abortion clinics”, and the media using right-wing euphemisms (couched in legislation like the “Unborn Victims of Violence” Act and the so-called “Partial Birth Abortion” ban) without questioning their effect on women’s lives. Allegedly, Conservatives want less government, but where women are concerned, they seem to feel justified in imposing their view of morality on everyone. I happen to remember what life was like before Roe v. Wade, as well as when it was still illegal even for married people to possess condoms without a doctor’s perscription (no, I am not making this up). I would hope the moderates and civil libertarians out there are not going to permit the religious extremists (who seem to be running the country) to go unchallenged. Why don’t the media pay more attention to this administration’s efforts to roll back women’s reproductive rights? [rant mode off]”

Popularity: 1% [?]

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:36:53 -0500
From: Crtnet News
Subject: Disc: MoveOn #7951
February 4, 2004, Number 7951
Communication Research and Theory Network
a service of the National Communication Association
———————————————————————
Re: Disc: MoveOn #7950 (James Aune)
Re: MoveOn.Org/Irene Grau’s post (Natalie Sydorenko)
MoveOn funding (Stephen D. Cooper)
Moveon.com (Phillip Dalton)
CBS censorship and MoveOn (Mark Andrejevic)
Re: Disc: MoveOn #7950 (Warren J. Bareiss)
MoveOn #7950 (Paul Oehlke)
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: James Aune jaune@tamu.edu
Let’s see: MoveOn.org is promoted “hate-filled” messages, according to the Republican National Committee. This is the same political party that ran an ad in Georgia last year in which triple-amputee Vietnam Vet Max Cleland’s face morphed into that of Osama bin Laden. It is the same party that has sucked up to that lovable junkie Rush Limbaugh when he compares Chelsea Clinton to a dog, implicates Bill Clinton in murder, and tells a black caller to “get the bone out of his nose.”
Go figure. . . As Joseph Welch said during the Army-McCarthy hearings: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
Jim Aune
Who is now functionally disenfranchised by Tom DeLay because his town has lots of blacks and hispanics. . .
The Texas Republic for Christ
**********************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Natalie Sydorenko natsyd@yahoo.com
Nicely put, Irene. Personally, as a supporter of MoveOn.org, I must say it has inspired me rhetorically more than anything else as of late. It offers many ideas, opportunites and challenges for/of political, activist, environmental, ideological, and internet rhetorics. And not to be picky, just accurate, it’s Eli Pariser (pres./founder of MoveOn), not Eli Parisi. For teacher-scholars, I believe MoveOn.org is a communicative and social phenomenon worth checking out. Peace to all.
Natalie Sydorenko
School of Communication
University of Akron
**********************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Stephen D. Cooper coopers@marshall.edu
Does anybody know where the money came from, to produce the spots in MoveOn’s contest? I’m just curious–whatever the source of the funding, it’s political speech and hence protected–but the production values are quite high, as well as I can judge on my computer monitor (check out the slick lighting in the winning spot), and that level of quality doesn’t come cheap. Moreover, networks won’t even consider airing video that’s below broadcast spec, so it seems safe (since that wasn’t CBS’s reason to refuse the contest winner) to assume that all of the entries were broadcast quality in their production values.
It just seems weird to me that a bunch of Joe- and Jane-Sixpacks out there would be so exercised about the Bush administration that they’d pony up all that much of their own dough just to put together a contest *entry*. Not impossible–just implausible. These things aren’t home camcorder jobs, I’m pretty sure.
Stephen D. Cooper, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
Marshall University
coopers@marshall.edu
*************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Phillip Dalton pdalton@stetson.edu
My suspicions:
Trying to make sense of why Professor (?) Oehlke repetitively refers to Moveon’s spots as “hate-filled” I can’t help but think that he is trying to use what he thinks is “liberal scare language” to either argue in favor of the CBS refusal to air the spots or to point out the absurdity of the use of “hate-filled” as a rhetorical device.
Let’s assume for a moment that Oehlke meant to support CBS’s refusal to air the spot. I’m curious about the ground on which this judgment is premised. Does he believe it best that we not confront issues such as matters of taxation in a “public-ish” forum? Ideally, what is to be gained by refusing to address the issue of the deficit when the largest US audience is convened? I’m puzzled: In principal, even Republicans believe in transparency and deliberation.
However, Oehlke may have been trying to upset liberals by using one of their rhetorical tactics. For instance, I believe it is presumed by many that the act of communicating messages contrary to, for example, minority leaders is often met with the ham-fisted response that that the rhetor is a “hater” or is “hate-filled.” Fed up with this type of accusation, Oehlke believes it is time to start throwing the same barb around at others when he disagrees with them. Unfortunately, I don’t think this tactic is going to resonate well with many in this forum.
Then again, let’s assume that Oehlke genuinely felt that airing the spot would have contributed to “hate.” Let’s grant for a moment that hate would have been propagated by the advertisement. It should be pointed out that Moveon never recommended hating Bush. In fact, certain groups far enough on the political right, after viewing the spot comparing Bush to Hitler, may have liked Bush more, never having realized the connection. Anyway, I agree that the comparison was sophomoric. Moveon, however, didn’t endorse the advertisement, they just failed to refuse it entry to a contest. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Moveon was going to run an entirely different advertisement than the Bush-Hitler spot. Regarding the Deficit spot Moveon wanted to run, it is my suspicion that propagating hate toward deficits is a conservative enterprise. You should be applauding their efforts. Right?
Philip D. Dalton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Stetson University
Dept. of Communication Studies
421 N. Woodland Blvd., Unit 8377
DeLand, FL 32723
386-822-8945
pdalton@stetson.edu
http://www.stetson.edu/~pdalton
*********************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Mark Andrejevic mark-andrejevic@uiowa.edu
There is little doubt that CBS’s decision (even if it were not based, as it claims, on longstanding policy) could stand as a fine example of a decision made, as one poster put it, for “purely business reasons.” However, we might question just how pure such reasons are. From a business perspective it would certainly seem counterproductive to air an advertisement antagonizing the party that dominates the executive and legislative branches — and the leadership of the FCC — when you’re desperately trying to squeak through rule changes that will allow you to become even bigger and more powerful as a media organization. It would be idiotic to do so at a time when your company (Viacom) is already over the limit and looking to expand — and would have to sell off properties if those rules weren’t changed. If democracy relies upon vigorous public debate, an informed populace, and critical scrutiny of its leaders, it seems worth asking the question of whether a conglomerate in the !
process of trying to persuade those leaders to allow it to expand economically is up to the task. It may be true that this was not an example of censorship because it wasn’t the direct result of a government directive, but that doesn’t mean we needn’t concern ourselves with the ways in which market forces (NOT consumer demand, but rather the attempt of giant corporations to influence regulatory policy) shape the information we receive. For example — and directly related to the CBS/Viacom decision: did CBS cover the fact that the recent spending bill actually raised the cap governing ownership rules? Not according to my Lexis search (did I miss it?). Despite the coverage generated by the flap over these rules in the Senate in the fall, there has been precious little follow up (I owe thanks to a colleague for informing me that the rule change was included in the spending bill — this was easy to miss if you weren’t paying close attention). So maybe MoveOn will get a smatter!
ing of publicity for its ad, but what didn’t get covered might be even
As for the content of the commercial, this administration has been wonderful at getting the opposition to play directly into its hands — a fact that opponents might do well to consider. Specifically, it’s worth asking the extent to which the ready critique of the Bush administration for running up the deficit might fit quite neatly with its goal of eliminating social programs and offloading governance onto private corporations and individuals. Those who would ground their Bush critique on the deficit might feel the ground give way beneath them when the administration suddenly agrees and slashes budgets for medicaid, education, national parks, the environment, the arts, regulatory enforcement, and so on.
***********************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Warren J. Bareiss bareissw2@UofS.edu
Paul Pilger (CRTNET 7950) writes that CBS is not guilty of censorship because, says Dr. Pilger, censorship is “government restraint of free speech.” According to my trusty Random House dictionary, a censor is an official, but an official is not necessarily a member of the government.
Let’s consider censorship in the history of U.S. film. In order to avoid government censorship, the industry censored itself from the 1930s at least through the 1950s via an internal body–the MPAA.
Also, broadcasting networks had internal censors at least up until the 1980s. They still might have them; I don’t know. They weren’t officially called “censors,” although they did screen all scripts and edited “offensive” material. The great radio comedian, Fred Allen, is famous for his ongoing squabbles with NBC censors. Along similar lines, I was just chatting with a colleague about the TV producer, Chuck Barris (”The Gong Show”) who–in a recent documentary shown on Trio–discussed his strategies for confounding TV censors.
My point is that the word “censorship” does apply to private entities’ internal decisions.
Secondly, Dr. Pilger says that MoveOn.Org is “happy” about not running the ad, because MoveOn.Org would save a lot of money. Dr. Pilger seems to assume that everyone, including MoveOn.Org, shares the same bottom-line, corporate mentality. I can’t speak for the people who run MoveOn.Org, but I can say that as a person who sent them $20 to run the ad, I am not at all happy that the ad wasn’t run during the Super Bowl. On the other hand, I am delighted to know that the spot will be shown on CNN, etc.
Finally, this really isn’t an issue of freedom of speech, in one sense. For almost seven decades now, broadcast networks have established the rules for who may speak via the airwaves. Apart from professional program producers and the occasional person-in-the-street interview, access to the airwaves is based on a pay-as-you-go method that we know as “sponsorship” (or “underwriting” in public broadcasting). If you have something to say, you pay. The situation with CBS and MoveOn.Org suggests that the bar is even higher–payment plus a message that does not offend or challenge the political powers that be.
Best wishes,
Warren Bareiss
University of Scranton
******************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Paul Oehlke rhetscholar@mac.com
Regarding the CBS rejection of the MoveOn.com spot during the Super Bowl spot, I offer the following responses (CRTNet 7950) Corporate Responsibility – MoveOn.com is responsible for what appears on its web site. By serving as host for the hate-filled spot comparing President Bush to Hitler, MoveOn.com acknowledged that its content fit within the boundaries of acceptable discourse for the organization. Mistakes, however, happen. MoveOn.com, to my knowledge, hasn’t claimed that inclusion of the spot was a mistake. By providing the stage for the spot’s wide distribution, MoveOn.com is responsible for its content. I’m not ill-informed about the nature of the MoveOn.com contest as Sheilah McIntosh Coffey claims, I’m simply not convinced that the inclusion of the Bush-Hitler ad was an innocent exercise of free speech.
Freedom of Speech – MoveOn.com’s freedom of speech was not violated in any meaningful sense. Paul A. Pilger explains in his post that freedom of speech refers to freedom from government restriction of speech and not the decision of CBS, a private corporation, to reject a spot. MoveOn.com’s support of speech chilling ‘harassment’ and ‘hate’ crimes policies in addition to its embrace of speech chilling campaign finance reform policies illustrate the organization’s enthusiasm for using government and government agencies to suppress free speech. MoveOn.com’s claim that its free speech rights have been violated is as empty as it is disingenuous.
Hate-Filled Speech – The ‘reasonable person’ and ‘reasonable woman’ standards are the basis for successfully establishing actionable claims in harassment case law. A reasonable person and/or a ‘reasonable conservative’ (the persons against whom the Bush-Hitler spot is meant to offend) would find the ad to be hate-filled. As a teen, I had the nauseating experience of visiting the Dachau concentration camp. After all these years, I still vividly recall the machinery of torture and death on display which was used against those the National Socialist Worker’s Party identified as socially as its political enemies and social undesirables. I believe that reasonable persons will agree that drawing the analogy between the Hitler’s crimes against humanity and GW Bush’s policies is hateful. Emilie Falc may not be aware of hate-filled speech other than the Bush-Hitler spot. A reasonable person and most certainly, a reasonable conservative would find a great deal at the MoveOn.com site t!
o be hate-filled.
One of the fruits of the relationship between NCA-Southern Poverty Law Center’s initiative to develop the tools and methods to identity and combat hate speech ought to be a swift and unequivocal condemnation of the Hitler-Bush spot and the organization which served as its host. Indeed, this is an ideal test case to demonstrate a principled application of the NCA’s efforts to speak forcefully against hate speech. We shall see…
Controversy – Hugh Munro ask’s ’since when was alcohol consumption noncontroversial?’ The answer, of course, is ‘alcohol consumption and over-consumption has always been a source of controversy.” Munro makes a fundamental mistake of most social reformers by projecting a degree of personal outrage onto to an audience that does not share his outrage. Alcohol spots are simply not controversial to most football fans. Besides, spots that promote responsible drinking are aired during football games without controversy. The alcohol objection is simply a red herring designed to deflect attention from the fact that the
MoveOn.com spot was judged by CBS to be highly controversial to too large a segment of their audience to be worth the trouble. Emilie Falc’s asserts that my reasoning is defective because of use of defective appeal to tradition apparently misunderstands the fallacy cited. Appeal to tradition is a perfectly acceptable means of warranting an argument. Because Falc finds disagreeable a close historical connection between alcohol consumption and football doesn’t mean that tradition is at all faulty or defective. In addition his analogy between excessive alcohol consumption and slavery is sufficiently faulty as to be virtually a non sequitur. Arguments concerning the inability to control one’s alcohol consumption are simply not of the same logical type as arguments concerning the right of one person to hold another person in bondage.
Media Access – Sean Johnson Andrews can’t resist mocking the serious substance abuse problem Rush Limbaugh has with prescription medication. Putting aside what is a hate-filled and unfeeling reaction toward a person who is working to control his addiction, Andrews believes that MoveOn.com is entitled to use media outlets the organization has neither created nor built. CBS is the product of a lot of hard work by William Paley and his successors. The network has succeeded where many others failed. One of the reasons for CBS’s success is a continual concern for the content of its broadcasts. The flap over the Janet Jackson flashing incident illustrates the bad publicity and damage caused by a bad programming decision. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh virtually single-handedly created AM talk radio. At a time when AM radio was in serious trouble, Limbaugh invented a highly attractive format for an audience the felt politically ‘marginalized’ if not despised by the dominant media opinion!
makers and gatekeepers. His success and the success of conservative talk radio was never inevitable. MoveOn.com is free to create its own media strategy that most effectively promotes its message. Rather than engaging in a neo-Marxist anti-capitalist rant bemoaning the fact that established media empires won’t air the MoveOn.com spot, the organization’s time would be far better spent creating the next media revolution. There’s no inherent barrier preventing MoveOn.com from creating and controlling a media colossus that would make airing a spot during the Superbowl ’small change’ by comparison.
Paul W. Oehlke

Popularity: 4% [?]

This debate is taken from Communication Research and Theory Network
CRTNET Digest – 29 Jan 2004 to 2 Feb 2004 (#2004-17)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:35:22 -0500
From: Crtnet News
Subject: Disc: MoveOn #7950
Communication Research and Theory Network a service of the National Communication Association
CBS censorship (Irene Grau)
MoveOn politics (Sean Johnson Andrews)
Of interest #7941 (Emilie Falc)
Re: #7941 reply/question to Oehlke (Jin Brown)
Re: Of interest #7941 (Hugh Munro)
Re: Of interest #7941 (Sheilah McIntosh Coffey)
Move-on Ad (Maurice Charland)
RE: Of interest #7939 (Paul A. Pilger)
From: Irene Grau profgrau@juno.com
Paul Oehlke wrote: “Besides, Moveon.com has made itself controversial through use of hate filled rhetoric and support and promotion of hate filled political events. Moveon.com may well have sealed its fate by hosting the hate filled spots comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler on its web site. Indeed, Moveon.com’s inflammatory rhetorical choices made the CBS decision a ‘no-brainer.’”
As one who has been following this event, Moveon.org (not .com) did not make any “rhetorical choice” to support and promote so-called hate filled spots. It made a choice to open up to individuals the opportunity to speak their minds, to demonstrate their creativity, and to allow others the opportunity to vote for their favorite ads. The rhetorical choice” made was to stand by their commitment to a democratic process and the American principle of freedom of expression. The hate filled ads that Paul mentions did not win, did not even make the final cut, and were promptly removed after the first round of voting. That they were inflammatory or in bad judgement is not the fault of Moveon.org. But just as folk are concerned about censorship on our “free” airwaves, Moveon.org would have been hypocritical not to give those particular ads the same chances of being seen and voted on as all the others.
As for Moveon.org’s actual rhetorical choices, co-founder Eli Parisi has done numerous interviews explaining their reasons for including the ad in the voting process AND apologizing for the offensive nature of the ad. It was not Moveon.org that made the ad, nor did they “promote” the ad; they merely gave it a fair public hearing along with all the other viewpoints and opinions. Is that not what we all want?
From: Sean Johnson Andrews sandrew3@gmu.edu
For a “rhetscholar” Paul Oehlke seems to fairly uncritically accept what are only empty explanations for CBS rejecting this ad. It is evident what echo chamber he spends most of his time in when he thinks it completely logical to call an ad–submitted by an individual to MoveOn as part of this contest–making a comparison of Bush and Hitler “hate filled.” (the argument is only applicable when Bush is the person being compared, evidently http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html) “Hate filled?” Only someone with an undying, passionate love for a political figure could claim that a fairly common, though usually irrational, logical leap employed all too often these days by a variety of agendas is “hate filled.” Is this an objective critical category? Shall we add it to our list of rhetorical tools: “slippery slope,” “bandwagon,” “hate-filled?” It seems like a difficult category to discern, but evidently if one employs such techniques it is understandable that they be disallowed from presenting their views in any forum where too many people might see it.
In our country at this moment, the concept of free speech seems to be only an empty rhetorical category. In this case, while Move On is at the center of a vast social movement, with a variety of views (yes, even if they aren’t all “conservative” or “republican” there are still differences among them) being represented and real public support evidenced by the primaries they’ve held, the variety of ads that came in for this contest, FOXNews and others in our punditocracy, have the platform to give a partial view of their activities. This platform is so able to present conjecture as fact that Oehlke feels justified in making a statement such as, “Indeed, Moveon.com’s inflammatory rhetorical choices made the CBS decision a ‘no-brainer.’” Of course MoveOn didn’t make the inflammatory rhetorical choices: a person who submitted an ad–which wouldn’t have won the contest anyway–to MoveOn for this contest made the rhetorical choic es; Move On, in the spirit of free speech, allowed the entry into the contest, evidently able to make a more courageous constitutional coice than CBS–even if they did remove it almost as soon as they got pressure from said echo chamber.
But I digress…In this case, saying that the deficit is a partisan issue–or that pointing out that our children will be paying for it is “inflammatory rhetoric”–is ridiculous. It’s almost $500 billion! Bush is supposed to be from the party that believes in fiscal responsibility; there are many Republicans that are angry about this as well. In the CBS response, they say that they will only air ads “based on how they believe such decisions serve the public interest in their communities.” How, please tell me, is an ad pointing out that there is a deficit not in the “public interest?” (And don’t ask the FCC chairman; he’s still waiting for the “Angel of the public interest” to visit him in sleep.)
The fact of the matter is that what has actually happened is that news/opinion programs aired on the television programs of some large corporations have taken it upon themselves, from their broadcast platforms of free speech, to present a cultural image of Move On as an “inflammatory” group. Another network, which, logically, rationally, “no problem here” owns all the rights and makes all the decisions about which ads get aired during one of the biggest television events of the year, now has to deal–not with the group itself, the people who support it, or its many activities over the past six years–but with a cultural image presented by these other news/opinion programs (and their tributaries in print, internet and the scores of evidently unemployed bloggers). It is ludicrus to propose that it is MoveOn’s fault that they (and their thousands of supportive citizens) are being shut out of the (formerly) publically owned airw aves where free speech happens simply because they allowed someone else to speak freely by entering a controversial ad into a contest which bunch of dittoheads decided was “inflammatory rhetoric.”
The irony is that this argument is basically saying that MoveOn got in “trouble” for letting a controversial ad on it’s site (i.e. allowing free speech in its own forum) and so we should understand if CBS doesn’t want to be tainted by accepting (uncontroversial) ads from them because then CBS could get in “trouble” if it allows free speech from them (i.e. not because of what they are saying, but because of who they are) in it’s forum–and, as we know, CBS has already been in “trouble” this year for its slanderous (or blasphemous, as the case may be) representation of Ronald Reagan, so of course they want to stay out of “trouble:” it is, from a perspective that reifies private corporate interests, a “no-brainer.” Hence, the ESPN argument seems amazingly relevant–except that the controversial figure at least got a chance to test the waters, to speak his mind, and, in his case, even get paid money (as opposed to having to raise funds from sup porters) to do so. And if it weren’t for the time he had to spend in re-hab, he would have been right back on theair broadcasting that view–and let’s face it, if you don’t have access to broadcasting, you don’t make it into the public forum in America.
I suppose that the new argument (maybe even a new 1st amendment) is that we all have free speech until we say something controversial that might lose the corporate mouthpieces of our culture some money–or, in this case, a few football fans who happen to be blissfully unaware of the growing deficit (inflammatory rhetoric, partisan, not a public interest issue, mind you) and would be so incredibly angry to find out about it at half time that they would reject all football (and other Reality TV) aired on CBS. The real issue, I suppose, is that we are ultimately left with the unfortunately correct argument, “It’s up to the corporate execs at CBS who gets to say anything on their network.” As is blatently clear, there is no public right to the airwaves (unless, as CBS notes, you are a political candidate or someone supporting a political candidate–a category which, curiously, MoveOn doesn’t fit into): the airwaves are now the property of corporate executives and corporate advertisers. I guess if we don’t like the decisions they make, we’ll just have to vote for someone else when they are up for re-election. Oh wait…all we can do is try to organize a publically visible (via what medium?) boycott of all the other excellent programming on CBS and hope that has an effect. Everything through the free market of monopoly media, right? Ah! isn’t utopia wonderful!
From: Emilie Falc efalc@winona.edu
In response to concerns about CBS refusing to air the MoveOn.org ad, this interesting debate questions how some fundamental American values including freedom of speech and capitalism can co-exist. Many Americans believe that we are really free to express ourselves–but this example clearly demonstrates that no decision is made “for purely business reasons” (Paul Oehlke) and that consumers are getting a conservative political position served up with their TV programming. This is similar to the critique that Shopping Malls have become politically muted when they ban flyers and create privately owned space verses the public spaces (sidewalks, parks, etc.) that are available in downtown shopping areas which allow freedom of expression.
One of the risky aspects of freedom of speech is that if you allow it, as MoveOn.org did for their ad contest, you will get many different perspectives, including the “hate filled rhetoric” Paul Oehlke mentioned. However, in the MoveOn.org sponsored contest, the Bush/Hitler comparison ad was rejected, not supported by the voters. I am not aware of other “hate filled political events” (Paul Oehlke) from MoveOn.org. If there are examples, I’d be interested in knowing what counts as such, as I am concerned, along with many others, about what some call the tone of negativity in politics today. MoveOn’s mission is, on the other hand, positively stated on their website: “MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our “representatives” don’t represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 1,700,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today.” (moveon.org/about)
I’m glad Paul Oehlke brought up reasoning in his last post. He wrote, “Like it or not, alcohol and athletics have been historically tightly connected.” His argument that ads for beer are appropriate for football is based on a reasoning fallacy, reasoning by tradition (see Sprague and Stewart). Correct me if I’m wrong, but just because it’s been that way mean that it’s right. I run across this type of reasoning fallacy often with my students. I use the example that just because there was a long tradition of slavery that fueled the economy of this country, it doesn’t mean that it was right. Does anyone have any other examples of the reasoning by tradition fallacy that might useful in class discussion of logic?
From: Jin Brown ffjgb@uaf.edu
I have read many of the MoveOn postings and seriously question the labeling of any of their material as “hate filled.” Perhaps Professor Oehlke could offer an example of something that goes beyond bias and exemplifies “hate filled” rhetoric.
From: Hugh Munro sashathor@earthlink.net
In response to Paul Oehlke’s defense of CBS’ rejection of MoveOn’s spot criticizing Pres. Bush’s deficit spending on an imperialistic war, I find Oelke’s arguments … unmoving. CBS acting “for purely business reasons” reminds that in the U$A today, PR and advertising are still the world’s ’second oldest professions’. And since when was alcohol consumption “non-controversial”? Tell that to the victims of drunken driving, and to the families destroyed by over-indulgence in booze.
From: Sheilah McIntosh Coffey coffeys@wam.umd.edu
The post by Paul Oehlke appeared to be ill-informed re MoveOn.com. The site did not sponsor hate filled messages about Bush by comparing him to Hitler. They ran a contest requesting ads that get the truth out about George W. Bush in 30 seconds. Yes, two of the ads submitted did compare Bush to Hitler(I’m told, I did not see either). The MoveOn subscribers voted (what a concept) on the winners and neither of the Bush/Hitler pieces won. I would not have known about them if it had not been for the misinformation the RNC had circulated and continues to be circulated.
This is not the first time the network has declined an ad because they deemed it too controversial. A few years back an ad for a large gay ministries wanted to run an ad during the Super Bowl but it was declined because it was deemed too controversial. I cannot remember the name of the church.
From: Maurice Charland charlan@vax2.concordia.ca
I agree that CBS should be called to task for refusing to run the Move On ad. However, the issue is not one of free speech, certainly not in terms of the first amendment. The issue is about the manner in which private institutions manage manage their share of public airwaves. In my view, CBS has a responsibility to promote political debate rather than curtail it. While it also has the responsibility to ensure that what is aired conforms to general standards of good taste, it should recognize that democracy thrives on controversy.
The irony, of course, is that television networks are quite happy to offer fare that is in bad taste, that panders, and that is morally questionable, because these do not generate controversy.
From: Paul A. Pilger ppilger@mailer.fsu.edu
CBS seems to have an excellent policy regarding airing political ads during the Super Bowl.
While viewers of the Super Bowl watch for entertainment, they do tend to get a little ornery. While reports of increased domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday are anecdotal and not supported by any study, what is not needed during the airing of the SuperBowl is another reason for viewers to get in each other’s face. I am a Republican, and will be the only Republican at a Super Bowl party of 20 devout to rabid Democrats. I am happy that I will not have to bite my tongue during a Super Bowl party when I see a political ad with which I disagree. Better yet, I am happy that I will not further upset the guy whose team is losing by letting him know that, not only does his team stink, but I think his political ideas do too. Anyone concerned about the negative effects of drinking alcohol during a football game should be cautious about further agitating the situation, which political ads would certainly do.
And CBS is censoring nothing.
Censorship is an act of government restraint of free speech, not a corporate decision to decline to air a commercial that won a contest conducted by a political activist group, in this case a very well organized, well-funded, media savvy group. Just like every other political organization, MoveOn.org has many, high-ratings opportunities for airing their ad, and, just like every other political organization, one of those times is not during the Super Bowl. That’s always been CBS’s position and it’s their position now. CBS’s policy treats everyone equally, and censors no one.
That CBS is running an anti-drug ad produced by the government is not a contradiction or hypocritical; the Super Bowl is the best time to run an ad which is in the public interest –the interest of the entire public– and an anti-drug ad is exactly that. People can be irresponsible when they drink, yes, which is not a reason to stop running beer ads. But if CBS wants to stop running beer ads, they may. There is no constitutional free speech right to have an ad aired, as demonstrated by the lack of hue and cry over violating the free speech rights of tobacco companies which cannot run television ads.
The idea that this is not a partisan issue is laughable. Political organizations often run important issue ads in a few major markets (New York, Washington DC, or Los Angeles) with the hope that national broadcast and cable news media will air their ad as part of a “news” story about the ad. This is a very effective strategy for getting a wider audience for the ad without having to pay for it and was a big part of MoveOn.org’s goal in holding the contest: media attention, media reporting, and media hype, all free of charge.
While CNN has covered the MoveOn.org contest winner, CNN has not gotten back to me on whether or not they actually aired any part of the ad during their news story. (American Family Voices did this successfully with anti-Bush ads; see Dan Altman’s July 10, 2002 NYT story for general information about that “secretive group”).
Yes, MoveOn.org would pay for the ad-time if CBS would agree to air their ad during the Super Bowl, but the idea is that there’s more going on here than a group making an ad and wanting to run it. MoveOn.org knows the rules and knew that CBS would not run their ad. They have pulled-off the converse of someone asking, “How often do you beat your wife?” Without provocation, MoveOn.org has asked, in effect,
“Did you just ask me ‘How often do I beat my wife?’
Why, that’s outrageous! I cannot believe I’ve been treated this way!”
At the moment, MoveOn.org is quite happy about not being able to air their ad during the Super Bowl, and for three good reasons: first, they will save a tremendous amount of money by not running the ad (though they are certainly well funded); second, they will –free of charge–garner much attention from national news organizations under the ruse of
“controversy” and “censorship”; third, the canard that MoveOn.org is being censored will help energize their members a bit, echoing accusations from Democrat activists and politicians that “the voices of opposition are being kept down by this administration,” as if CBS is being pressured by the RNC and as if the White House enjoys disproportionately good press from CBS.
If the shoe were on the other political foot and “MoveOn.org” and “George W. Bush” were replaced with “Rush Limbaugh” and “Bill Clinton,” Democrats would roll their eyes in righteous indignation at the charge that CBS was censoring Limbaugh.
But MoveOn.org has gotten their wish: a lot of people are talking about an ad that won’t run which criticizes a White House that MoveOn.org asserts is trying to limit free-speech, and all at no cost. It hardly gets any better than this.

Popularity: 1% [?]

CBS refuses to air anti-Bush ad. Shannon Payne sent this along.
“AKPC_IDS += "11120,";

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tried to add categories to some of the older entries – those that we ported in from my old weblog. They don’t seem to be sticking. I’m bumming!

Popularity: 2% [?]

The trackback didn’t catch it, but David in his web-surfing did. We’ve been noted on an internet technologies blog!
Internet Research 4.0.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I’ll try to go to some of these – now that I have part of my life back!
Umass Korean Film Festival .

Popularity: 1% [?]

RadioFree Brattleboro gets support from the Center for Democratic Communications (CA).
A community meeting last Thursday was covered by the local paper: Lawyer: Selectboard support would aid rfb.

Popularity: unranked [?]

FCC delivers ultimatum to rfb presents a classic research opportunity. If only I had the time… The article gives a solid summary of the situation and events to date; and the lead editorial points to the need to resist.
radiofreebrattleboro deserves support, but it looks like the town powers that be aren’t going to go to the mat, despite immense community support. The strength of the support, however, does seem to position the rfb folk for a lawsuit; of course their main question is, what gives? The FCC has nothing better to do than stomp out tiny, low power community radio stations? rfb transmits within a 2-mile radius of downtown Brattleboro.
There are some posts following this story at Community Radio USA. A weblog, Blue Canary also came up on Google with a hit to RadioFreeBrattleboro but I couldn’t find the reference in my quick scan.

Popularity: 1% [?]