|
Why the Helen Thomas case makes one nervous
By David Harsanyi A few months ago, a picture appeared in The Denver Post. On a local college campus -- an alleged stronghold of free inquiry and debate -- a leftist student, protesting some perceived injustice, was holding a sign that argued: "Hate speech is not free speech!"This is the distillation of the "if I don't like it you can't say it" argument -- the assertion of the "right" not to be offended...
They do value liberty, but to them the concept involves them not having to leave other people alone. We live in a self-centered age.
There's the distinction, and it's a distinction that's too subtle for many to grasp. It started with good intentions: calling people "niggers," "kikes," "wops," "beaners" and such is pure bad manners. Since we now live in an age where gents don't have to mind their language in the presence of ladies some alternative mechanism was needed for the enforcement of that single permissible branch of good manners. That was the genesis of political correctitude, involving as it did the progressive bluing of the national nose. The illusion is that if you can control the speech you can control the thought behind it. And that, beyond the obvious attacks on free speech (fairness doctrines, higher education, etc.) is a more slippery concern. Which brings me to Helen Thomas' now infamous and career-ending comment in which she helpfully suggested that the Jews get "the hell of out Palestine." "Is this the face that sank a thousand ships?" True, I find some comfort in knowing that this unprofessional crackpot will never haunt a president, common sense or the public again. But I wince at the rapidity of her demise. And I feel a nagging anxiety about a journalist losing her job over nothing more than a controversial statement. She's in the same company as Howard Cosell, Jimmy the Greek, and various other violators of speech codes, intentional or otherwise.
Had the same remark been made by someone less repugnant that Helen it actually might have gone without comment. What would the reaction have been if the perpetrator had been Howard Fineman? Michael Barone? Bill O'Reilly? Different in the case of each, is my guess, ranging from shrug to surprise with a pause in the middle for "I didn't know he thought that way." Each would have been employed at the end of the day, none being as offensively batty as Helen. Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former roving reporter for Hearst (which syndicated Thomas' column), in a letter urged the company "strenuously" to "cut all ties" with Thomas "as quickly as possible." He was part of the purely figurative mob that was armed with verbal pitchforks and printed torches... It seems an odd reaction, especially for conservatives, who are accused regularly of thought crimes and hate speech by outfits like Media Matters, which are in the business of smearing and discrediting those who disagree with them. But we ink-(and increasingly digitally-) stained wretches are in the business of viewing with alarm, pointing accusing fingers, and flinging figurative offal at each other. The views, points and flings work in both directions. Occasionally there's a casualty on our side, sometimes we get one on their side. There are times when battle is joined so closely we're not sure whose eye our figurative thumb's in. This is known as freedom of press. It is the antithesis of the poorly reasoning girly in the first paragraph. But an opinion -- in Thomas' case, an ugly opinion that in all probability is more common than some people might believe -- is no more than the strength of the logic behind it. Having expressed the opinion, the lady is obliged to defend it. Being unable to defend it she chose to retire from the fray, to spend more with her pets or her family or whatever she spends time with. As a regular defender of the moral right of Israel to fight the theocrats and fascists that Thomas embraces, I never thought she was very credible or articulate on the topic, and she is unworthy of the over-the-top reaction from critics. She has been tolerated even by those on the same side for many years now, as it has become increasingly obvious that she's an offensive loop-loop. The reaction was to the totality of Helen, not only to her remarks, which were barely more offensive than much of her behavior in the past few years.
That's approximately what I just said. Quod erat demonstrandum. Though I don't hold an earthly stake in debates over God, Bill Maher's ludicrous anti-Catholic rants or a tome from a polemist like Christopher Hitchens (who condemns all religion as a dangerous farce) might be "appalling" to rather large swaths of the public. Are certain topics off the table? The difference is that Hitchens defends his arguments, whether one agrees with the defense or not. Maher hides behind his status as a "humorist" which somehow lessens the amount of mental effort he's required to spend on his defense. You kind of expect the funny guy to be a dumbass, though there's also a certain surprise that the dumbass isn't funnier. But maybe that's just me, since he hasn't been dumped for his own collection of gaffes. Helen had run out of mental steam and reached the point where her remarks sounded merely witchy mean. She had a reputation as a crotchet. She had probably expected them to be ignored, which they may well have been had she not made them to a rabbi. Hitchens or Maher bitching out a monseigneur would likely be taken with less understanding than their usual fulminations.
As long as the newspapers are held privately they should be able to do what they want with their employees. And there's nothing to stop Helen from continuing to publish even further into her dotage. All she needs to do is sign up with the Huffington Post or Salon or the New Republic. Or she could download a very good program perfectly free from Word Press, who would even host it for her for free. There is no monolithic state press organ to maintain blacklists and to conduct public purifications of opinion. And, no, I can't mourn the loss of Helen Thomas' detestable opinions. But, at the same time, I can't help but feel some trepidation about the ease in which some voices -- in this case, one voice that is probably more honest than others of similar ideological disposition -- can be expelled from the conversation simply for offending. Posted by: Fred 2010-06-09 |
|||||
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=298557 |