OPINION & EDITORIAL
Politicians, TV news hurt genuine debate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- New media needs legal consideration (October 4, 2005)
- Reflecting a changed world (September 17, 2001)
- Seg Fees Fuel Speech (October 18, 2001)
- Media actually lean right (September 10, 2001)
- Senate Bill 1 vital (March 21, 2006)
by Bassey Etim
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The beauty of the Internet is that it offers an uncensored window into the thoughts of regular folks. No matter how abhorrent or illogical, it is a virtue to study these depths of the human mind. Here, we can understand what drives votes better than any opinion poll or focus group. There exists an unrivaled freedom in anonymity.
At an Associated Collegiate Press convention I attended in Minneapolis last weekend, a keynote speaker said online editions of newspapers and blogs should not allow anonymous comments. When she asked for our thoughts, I said that it is not our place to decide the correct way for readers to approach a debate. Following a testy exchange, I wondered if she might be right — that online feedback doesn't add to rational or reasonable debate. I wondered what anonymous comments might add to discourse.
Needless to say, I quickly came to my senses. An editorial section shouldn't be in the business of censoring the thoughts of the population it serves. Further, I don't have the wisdom to determine what comments are unreasonable beyond those calling a writer's mugshot ugly or spreading racist propaganda. Isn't it more important to find the deep-seated prejudices that drive some voters than to know whether they are willing to put a name behind their ideas? Like our managing editor, Mike Gendall, said after the incident, comments left anonymously are naturally taken with a grain of salt, and signing a name instantly lends an opinion more credibility. This is something for the readers to sort out — not for editors to micro-manage. That is why I am proud of badgerherald.com and its capacity to facilitate discussion, no matter how bizarre.
We employ writers to give the paper a personality, and we choose letters to the editor with loose standards. The Internet can make newspapers stronger by giving the community a sounding board mediated only by the most basic sense of decency and the agenda-setting capacity of our well-researched staffers. This, and not the potential for corporate growth, makes the Internet such a revolutionary force. The Internet streamlines the power of the marketplace of ideas.
Sadly, the marketplace of ideas has come under attack in the halls of our own Congress from some Republicans who claim that open debate about U.S. policy in Iraq comforts terrorists. They echo the claims of Australian Prime minister John Howard, who suggests presidential candidate Barack Obama is a friend of al-Qaida. Some cowards in the government fail to realize that all we have is our discourse and that the right to free debate is a guarantee all Americans should be willing to defend.
On a fundamental level, it is more important to maintain our national integrity than put on a charade for terrorist organizations and blindly follow this administration's misguided policy.
Most distressing is how far this logic might extend. Do we really want to facilitate the rise of a totalitarian state by insisting democracy create the farce of a united front against its enemies? In my eyes, these are the truly unpatriotic Americans. What happened to the clarion call of liberty or death? Aren't the ideals of our nation worth this much, or have we lost them due to the fickle allure of partisan politics?
All the while, our media continues to be distracted by sideshows like Anna Nicole Smith. With genocide in Africa, a war in Iraq, traveling presidential candidates, airline passengers stranded for nearly a week, a terrorist bombing in India and continued hostage crises in Nigeria, live coverage of an Anna Nicole paternity hearing dominated Fox News and MSNBC. Nonstop coverage of a D-list actress' death on MSNBC — "the network for politics" — forces me, along with thousands of other viewers to turn the TV off in disgust. Cable news does have its bright spots, but is usually dominated by tabloid fare and daytime anchors whose interviewing skills are rivaled only by deaf, domesticated parrots.
Our national dialogue is struggling, to say the least. The negligent public figures who politicize the foundations of our democracy combined with an easily distracted media equate to little progress for this nation. Nonetheless, tomorrow morning I will turn on the TV once again and approve dozens of anonymous Web comments. In the end, optimists always win the day.
Bassey Etim (betim@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 6:34am):
Hmmm, you (in the general sense) say we should pull out, quit, give up, surrender in Iraq, I say those words give comfort (actually they embolden them, make them fight harder and kill more of Americans and Iraqis, comfort makes it sound like they are melancholy to start with) to the enemy. What is that called? Debate perhaps.
Words have consequences, free speech has responsibility. If one is going to utter the words, they should be held accountable for the result. I see no one trying to censor the opposition, instead, I see the opposition whining like babies because others are daring to point out the consequences of their words.
The debate should have been whether to go or not BEFORE we went. If there were those who opposed it, but voted in favor anyhow, they are called slime and did so to help their political career. Now that we are there, the only debate should be HOW TO WIN! Instead, politicians are spewing garbage which results in more dead Americans and Iraqis. If the military would have been allowed to do their job, most of the men and women would be home right now, more Americans would be alive as would Iraqis.
Al Qaeda (or however you spell their name this week) and various other terror groups, as well as Iran and North Korea thank you for giving the insurgency the motivation they need to fight harder and terrorize the masses in an effort to make Iraq (and eventually the world) that much closer to radical (note that word) Islamic rule.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 7:26am):
Alright if you want TO WIN what are THE OBJECTIVES that define this victory?
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 8:41am):
Wouldn't killing more civilians "embolden" them more than us saying, "ok, we screwed up, now we'll leave you alone?" Since, you know, most of the current insurgents took up arms AFTER the invasion, thus it would make sense that they're fighting only a war to protect their homes and countries, and likely wouldn't come after us if we left.
The whole "emboldoning" and "we must WIN" argument is ridiculous. But if you really want to win so badly, the army can always use one more private.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 9:40am):
Wait for it... wait... "needless to say." You actually said something that you didn't need to say. Thanks for the daily dose of juvenile jargon.
I'm curious, was there anything else that you didn't say that was needless to say?
The sky is blue, farts stink, girls have vaginas.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 9:53am):
Spoken by a true scholar on world affairs. I am sure you are a historical scholar as well and know the impact similar words had in Vietnam.
Oh, perhaps the army is looking for another private, too bad I already served my time and can no longer participate. You can go ahead and do whatever it is you do, but please, let the real men and women, with a sense of duty, continue to make sure you can walk to school with little fear of someone with a bomb strapped to their body won't try to ruin your whole day.
You should be proud, you are the type of person who various terrorist organizations (and world leaders) talked about when they said Americans are so pampered they do not have the ability to finish what the started. Congrats, Osama, you were right, there are some like that here in the U.S. They never learned history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 10:59am):
I love an anonymous comment that is arrogant and clueless enough to say:
"Words have consequences, free speech has responsibility. If one is going to utter the words, they should be held accountable"
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 11:26am):
8:41, "it would make sense that they're fighting only a war to protect their homes and countries, and likely wouldn't come after us if we left."
Because we're over there bulldozing homes and destroying public utilities???
Do you have any idea whatsoever of how terrorist groups function? They don't sit at home and write books. They go to other countries and kill people. Educate yourself before making such childish comments. You may want to start by asking somebody about what happened on 9/11.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 11:27am):
This article is kind of all over the place. However, I totally agree with the comments regarding the Anna Nicole Smith coverage. It just goes to show that commercial news companies care more about the bottom line than about covering news that actually matters. That said, it's still baffling that anybody is interested in the post-Anna Nicole Smith stuff. Well, other than wanting to get a piece of J. Howard Marshall's money.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 11:49am):
I too, am disgusted with the attention women like Smith and Spearsh have received during this incredible time. If I want that kind of news, I can go to magazines, websites, and TV shows devoted to these kind of individuals. CNN and NBC should not run as their main story the antics, and even the unfortunate deaths, of America's divas.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 12:26pm):
You are all clueless. Didn't you hear? We WON!!! The British are leaving Iraq right now with heads held high. USA USA USA!!!
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 1:13pm):
10:59 and you disagree with that statement how? Are you sure you aren't the clueless one?
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 2:16pm):
"Wouldn't killing more civilians "embolden" them more..."
Aren't most of the civilians being killed by the terrorists? Won't there be a huge bloodbath if we just pull out? Do you really think that a Cambodian or Rwandan level massacre would be that un-likely? Not that piles of skulls would be that much of a new thing in that part of the world.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 3:35pm):
Why doesn't anyone make a distinction between terrorist and insurgent? If you're in a WAR ZONE, no one should be defined as a terrorist. Perhaps soldier or militant would be a better description.
The "war" on terror, therefore, is a misnomer because a war zone is the normal place for battle to occur. One should expect to be shot at or threatened in a war, but not unexpectedly terrorized.
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 8:30pm):
You dont like TV news? Change the channel.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
