John, I certainly hope that you do get an invite, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I am constantly amazed that people like Lovelady, who are in a position to not only know better but should know better, do their d@mndest to try to show off their partisanship and lack of cluefulness.
Years ago, when I first was able to get access to the internet (telnet shell account only, no WWW and no browsers), at that time I likened it to Gutenberg's invention of movable type. I could see that the 'net was going to provide the type of social sea change that Gutenberg did.
For those who are unaware of the impact of movable type on society's literacy, prior to Gutenberg the only people who could read and "owned" books were the very rich, elite who could afford to have their children tutored and educated to read and who could afford to have a "scribe" painstakingly write out/copy each and every book they wanted. There were no "mass publishers" at that time.
With the invention of movable type, Gutenberg assured that the unwashed masses could obtain and afford "books" that previously only the rich had access to. With this availability, literacy among the citizenry started climbing and eventually led the way to making the "publishing" and subsequently the "news" industry.
The internet has provided even the poorest of citizens with access to information that only a few years ago was completely hidden from them. It has only been within the last 10 years that government records, documents, databases and other public information has become available to anyone with a computer and phone line. Corporate records are more and more available online. Court documents, schedules and proceedings. And, of course, "news" reports from all over the world are at just about everyone's fingertips. And within the last year or so, "blogs" (although I hate that term!).
Yes, one must tread carefully among this ever growing field of "data" and conscientiously work to ascertain the facts from the fiction. However, just the fact that the "facts" are now available to the average citizen, where just a few short years ago they were either hidden, obscured or controlled by the rich and powerful, viz. MSM, is just society shaking. But the fact that I at least can search for and read about an obscure comment made at some high mucky muck meeting in Davos is a truly world shattering change. The sheer fact that a person like Lovelady can't see this through his myopic prejudices says volumes about not only him but CSJ, et. al.
Back many years ago when I was in college, there was a machine in the Student Union called something like "IQ Tester". You would put in a quarter and it would give you a series of multiple guess questions on a wide variety of topics- academic "Trivial Pursuit" sorta. The object was to get the highest score and getting above a certain score (winning, as such) would provide you with another turn (free) to play again. Well, this being college and we all being radical rabble rousers, we used to get a group together consisting of many different majors and fields of study. The first person who knew the answer would hit the answer button.
Needless to say, we were more often than not rated as geniuses (genii??) since the pooling of knowledge would invariably "beat" the machine.
It is the internet and places like Free Republic where there is a "pooling" of the best of the best minds, to filter, discuss and argue about both the facts and the fiction and come up with a distilled "truth". This will always be preferable to someone like Steve Lovelady, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan or whomever, to filter everything and decide for us what we should be told, or what we should "know". And it is the intractable, sclerotic minds of those people who are objecting to the fact that they are no longer the gatekeepers, the rich elite (a la pre-Gutenberg) who can control the rabble by controlling the knowledge and access to truth- and to fiction. It doesn't matter whether it is truth or fiction, as long as we are allowed to know both, to research and find out which is which.
Back in those college years, one of my favorite ploys when discussing/arguing something with others was to suddenly say, "OK, time to change sides. You argue my point, and I'll argue yours." In debate, it is commonly agreed that you should be knowledgable enough to argue either side, but few people are capable of doing so. It takes a grasp of the whole picture, and seeing the strong points and weaknesses of both sides. It was hilarious to see the other person (or persons) sitting there with the mouths hanging open, unable to function because they only knew one side - their side- of the topic and were completely incapable of seeing anything else.
Why do I get that exact picture of Steve Lovelady in my mind when I read his knee jerk responses to your comments. It is doubly shameful for him since he is supposed to be in a position which celebrates and extols the virtue of non-partisan ship, of neutrality, of lack of bias. If he is representative of the faculty and administration of the CJS - and from what I have read, he is - there really seems to be no greater hypocrites and bigots than they.
I certainly think you could hold your own in a fair debate with them, but I doubt seriously that you would find any kind of fairness there, judging from Lovelady and his ilk. I wish you the best if you go there, but don't think you'll be able to sway any minds like you would an appeals court panel. You have to remember that there has to be a mind there to sway and Lovelady, et. al., don't seem to show there is much there except brain damaged liberals who wouldn't know a "journalist" if he came up and hit them on the nose.
And that being the CJS, is all the more the shame of it.
I've enjoyed your articles and writing. Keep up the good work and good luck with your attempts in the election areas. [grin]
"There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
--Will Rogers