Posted on 01/10/2010 8:45:45 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
The tone of America's discourse seems to have taken a wrong turn, and many people are worried that we are no longer treating each other with the respect and courtesy that we expect in our society.
Who knows when it all started. It didn't start when Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted out "You Lie" during President Obama's speech to Congress Sept. 9, nor in June when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said that Rush Limbaugh is the "guy who says the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. should get the Medal of Honor." (He didn't say that, according to NewsBusters.org).
It didn't start when then-Vice President Dick Cheney said "F*** yourself" to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy in June 2004, nor in 1984 when Barbara Bush described Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro this way: "It rhymes with rich."
Sadly, these problems have been around so long that we can't even figure out when the protection of free speech morphed into a misuse of that right.
Whenever it started, perhaps it's now gone too far. Is there no limit to what can be said or done on the Internet or in public?
I am open-minded to criticism as well as compliments -- as both a teacher and a Politics Daily contributor, I am often subject to both. The comments on my PD posts are generally directed from one commenter to another rather than at me, and I'm often surprised at how nasty the back-and-forth can become. Still, I appreciate this window into their world, as the posted comments give me insight into what the readers are thinking and how I can address their concerns. Without feedback, I could end up writing in an echo chamber. Just as a politician must be willing to take criticism, so, too, must I. That's just one consequence of writing what you think.
But, many of us feel that a line was crossed in the comments posted on Carl Cannon's obituary of journalist Deborah Howell. Some of the remarks exceeded any boundaries of civility. Politics Daily's Editor in Chief, Melinda Henneberger, wrote a response to these comments and later, on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation," discussed the importance of standing up for civility.
Melinda is right that some of the reactions were over the top and exceeded the bounds of civility. But, removing hateful comments from the debate also raises a troubling issue. Have we now become so thin-skinned that we have to start censoring people's comments just because they might offend someone? Some things may be best left unsaid -- my mom always advised that if I didn't have anything nice to say, then I shouldn't say it -- but where do we draw the line between what is my free speech and your hate speech?
Conversely, does allowing this vile behavior to continue have a pernicious impact on society as a whole? It is this latter point that troubles some of us. For example, Peggy Noonan, President Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that although most Americans think the economy is on the wrong track, they are concerned about much more than the economy. She cited the sexually suggestive performance by Adam Lambert of American Idol fame on ABC in November, writing, "It's things like this, every bit as much as taxes and spending, that leave people feeling jarred and dismayed, and worried about the future of their country."
The responses to Howell's death and Lambert's crude performance do not represent where America is headed, but they do show that we are increasingly questioning and perhaps violating traditional boundaries in the public domain. Many commenters on Noonan's article noted that the boundaries of what is acceptable are changing. Fifty years ago, television only filmed Elvis Presley from the waist up to avoid showing his gyrating hips; now, as some commenters note, television networks broadcast performances that might have been x-rated in Elvis' time.
The list of boundaries that have fallen and those that have yet to fall is way, way too long. Just read any article that mentions President Obama and you are likely to find a stream of vile, racist comments. Pushing over boundaries does not have to mean pushing over boundaries of decency. And, that's where I part with those who think "anything goes" on the Internet.
That's my opinion. But for those who would like some objective analysis, economics provides a good justification for editing comments. Consider the Nobel Prize-winning research known familiarly as the "Lemons Dilemma" by Professor George A. Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley.
Akerlof used the analogy of a used car lot to demonstrate how the "bad" can drive out the "good." Because customers couldn't tell which used cars were bargains and which were lemons, and because they did not want to risk overpaying for a clunker, prices fell for all used cars, both the good and the bad. As prices fell, the owners of quality used cars stopped putting their vehicles up for resale, thus driving the price down further so that the car lot quickly became filled with lemons. The result was that customers grew discouraged --- and ultimately gave up --- when they had to wade through lots with more lousy vehicles than quality ones.
A similar outcome occurs with comments. Because you don't want to have to weed through a bunch of garbage to get to the insightful remarks, you stop posting your views, and this cycle continues until the comments are dominated by garbage. The bad comments drive out the good comments and, when this happens, we're all worse off because we don't have the benefit of a broad range of views.
How is an editor supposed to address this issue? Politics Daily has what is jokingly called the "PD PD" or the Politics Daily Police Department. The PD police deletes comments that are inappropriate, offensive, and unrelated to the topic so that the readers can engage in a civilized discussion online. By improving the quality of the comments, i.e., by solving the lemons' dilemma, the PD police provide a good service to our readers. Commentators can, of course, do their own editing by following a simple rule, or checklist. The value of a checklist has been recently documented by Atul Gawande, Brigham and Women's Hospital doctor, Harvard professor, and staff writer at The New Yorker, in his book "The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right."In essence, Gawande says that if you run through a checklist before you act, you are more likely to make the right decision than if you don't. This analysis provides useful guidance for how to determine where to draw the line in posting comments.
Here's the checklist, which has just one question: Would you post this comment if your mother knew you were posting it?
That's it -- a simple test that may force all of us to really think about the impact of our words.
The left has been stoking the immoral, unethical, indecent, and impolite fires for decades.
And this is the result . .the level of their discourse is beyond decency, it’s childish and reprehensible.
You can’t murder fifty-two million babies and have “civility.”
We are in a war. Our government is in the hands of mass murderers, liars, thieves, tyrants.
Note that what Joe Wilson said was true, while what Rachel Maddow said was a lie. That’s infinitely more important than “incivility.”
Just words....
Quite the indictment of the established press, wouldn't you say?
That the statement is dead wrong is not the point: that a "journalist" would say this about his fellow writers is damning on many levels.
Liberals have no problem with personal attacks when they're spewing them, As a rule conservatives argue with facts, liberals respond with personal insults in order to shut them up because they don't have common sense and logic to back them up. Look at Glenn Beck, he makes his argument, gives his facts , backs it up with clips and statements and yet any rebuttal is a personal attack. They never refute his actual argument, which is why he has the red phone on his show, this way if his facts are wrong he invites people to call and refute them, So far it's never rung.
The “Mom” check won’t work. When Obama pulled a hoodie style shoot the finger at Hillary, McCain and accused the general public of lying about HealthControl, would his fifth column Marxist slut of a mother have objected? Surely not.
Unless serial abandonment of her spawn is a form of objection.
Anyway, this article is simply a surveyor’s stake for left wing censorship. They cannot win without ignorance and probably terror, so now is the time to defend the 1st and 2nd Amendments like never before.
Being a male, I would be concerned what my mother thought, but I would be very concerned about what my daddy thought. My mother worked on emotion, what was good for her family and church. My daddy worked on logic, what was good for his family as well as the nation. Each of my parents needed to be listened to and their opinions brought together in context. The more we segregate their opinions, the more we segregate the family.
Lately, before I share my brilliant wisdom, perceptive insights, trenchant comments and arch wit, I ask myself (don’t insert old joke about self here, “self,....”?) does the world really want or need my, probably silly or smart a$$ comments, and increasingly, the answer is no.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Does a single person on the left understand the difference between the rights of a person running their own blog and the limits placed on Congress?
Excellent points. Thank you. You had worthy parents.
BTW, LBJ, Johnson had a sewer mouth so this started long before Cheney.
Oh, NOW the Lefties are concerned with civility?!
When did it all begin? I was gone from the country for 5 years, 1969 to 1974 when I was serving first in Viet Nam, then Germany. I did not return to the country I left. Gone were many common courtesies practiced as I grew up and simple friendly gestures extended to most all.
For those old enough, if you recall all of the societal norms were pretty much to be rejected and replaced with the “free love” and “anti-establishment” attitude.
You are now experiencing the unintended consequences of rejecting such norms that held society together.
In essence, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
Asking if your mother would approve is fruitless because how many really care about their mother today?
Remember the CNN woman who used the F word AGAIN to bring in the New Year?
I have read a whole lot of articles on Obama..not to mention, thousands and thousands of forum posts and blogs. I have seen very little, if any, racial comments. He has so much more wrong with him, than the color of his skin. People dont have to stoop to racial slurs when commenting on Obozo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.