Bill O'Reilly Hit Piece on Fordham University

Did you see the classic, textbook piece of propaganda Bill O'Reilly did about Fordham University last night?   Here's a link if you missed it.  O'Reilly starts off saying Fordham "banned" Ann Coulter from a speaking engagement on the campus, then he explains what in fact happened (she wasn't banned), and wraps up with Jesse Watters in front of Fordham with a slapdash compilation of video interviews with students taken out of context to make them look bad and have Fox's viewers get a laugh at their expense.

Here are the facts of the Ann Coulter matter:  Fordham University's Republican Club, a student group, invited her to speak.  Fr. Joseph McShane, President of Fordham University, wrote the Club and university community a strong letter criticizing the invitation of Coulter to Fordham.   The Republican Club considered the points made in the letter and decided to rescind its invitation.

Note that the University President has no direct power over students, not even indirect power.  The president doesn't grade students, or evaluate their progress towards graduation.  The first is done by professors, and the second by professors and deans.  One dean in particular - the Dean of Students - could have banned Coulter from campus, or refused to allow the proposed student event - but that did not happen.   The students decided not to invite her.

No one's First Amendment rights were violated.  No government official prevented Coulter from speaking.   Fr. McShane's expression of opinion not only violated no one's rights, but was morally justified.   Presidents of universities should speak out about issues affecting the university.  And, in fact, he was right to be concerned about Ann Coulter.  She has called Barack Obama a "retard," John Edwards a "faggot," and characterized our immigration policy as designed to reduce the percentage of white people in the American population.   The First Amendment protects her right to say and write such things without government interference.   It does not give her the right to say that in a university community, which strives to teach tolerance and respect for diversity.   One could argue that Fordham University would have indeed been justified in banning Coulter, or any purveyor of epithets and racist reasoning.  And, yet, Fordham showed tolerance by not banning Coulter.

Why then did O'Reilly characterize the Coulter affair as a banning?   Because, like all clever propagandists, he knows that big lies stick, even after the purveyor of the lie quietly explains what actually happened.   O'Reilly last night explained that Coulter wasn't actually banned, because he wants to be on record as presenting the facts when he's called on lying about Coulter being banned.  Like all propagandists, he wants both the benefit of his lie and protection from its consequences.

As for the Watters piece, we've seen this technique over and over again on Fox: ambush people on the street, ask them questions, call upon them to give details, and then splice it all together to show how uniformed they are.   But the young woman who said Coulter was a racist was right (she also happens to be one of my students).   She couldn't cite an example on the spot, but she was right nonetheless.   Don't believe me?  Look up Coulter's article on Wikipedia.  Even Watters could have done that, had he been interested in the truth.

The facts in this case have been out there for a month, regarding Coulter's invitation to Fordham, and longer regarding her abusive language.  But Fox and O'Reilly are not interested in truth or even facts.  Poorly researched and reasoned - O'Reilly at one point wrongly says that a public university would have gotten into big trouble had it banned Coulter (not true) - O'Reilly's segments have devolved from being pointed, politically abrasive presentations, which are valuable in our body politic, to sad examples of how to bungle and mispresent a story for a quick round of ignorant applause.

BarelyPolitical.com Gives Ann Coulter the Business!

The BarelyPolitical.com team - Leah Kaufmann as songwriter/singer, and Ben Relles producer - turns its satirical attention to Ann Coulter in the above video. Except, rather than the Obama Girl videos which we were fun, this Coulter video has a much deserved serious political bite to the satire. (Well, the Giuliani video had a little of that bite, but this Coulter performance has much more.)

Obama Girl Amber Lee Ettinger - who I was pleased to have lecture in my class at Fordham in September (along with Ben Relles) - makes just a quick cameo appearance in this production. Instead, Kaufmann takes front and center stage - not only as singer and songwriter, as she was in the Obama Girl videos, but as the singer we can see.

Kaufmann is easily the leading satirical lyricist around these days. "Perfect me, make me petty, I want to be hateful like Ann Coulter...," Kaufmann beseeches Coulter, picking up on her comment that Jews need to be "perfected"...

I'd say Kaufmann, judging by her talent as a writer, singer, and now a performer, is already there.

And BarelyPolitical.com continues in its work as the best new-media satire operation around.

See also:

Obama Girl Applauded in my Class at Fordham

and The Barely Political Revolution

Talking Edwards v. Coulter on KNX1070 Radio Sunday monring

A quick note - I'll be on KNX1070 all-news radio out of Southern California tomorrow morning, in my usual 7:20am (Pacific) Sunday spot, interviewed by Todd Leitz about Elizabeth and John Edwards v. Ann Coulter on MSNBC's Hardball.

Links to blog posts with my views are below - I think Coulter got what she deserved...

The interview will be live-streamed everywhere at www.knx1070.com ... 7:20am Pacific, 10:20am Eastern, you can do the math for all the other time zones...

My blog posts on the Edwards v. Coulter:

Real Hardball: Elizabeth Edwards v. Ann Coulter

Hardball II: John Edwards about Ann Coulter

Hardball II: John Edwards about Ann Coulter

A day after Ann Coulter wondered why Elizabeth Edwards, not John Edwards, was calling her out about her personal attacks, Hardball made the good move of bringing John Edwards on to give his views on this important matter.

Firs, to reiterate what I said earlier - Elizabeth Edwards had every right to confront Ann Coulter about the personal attacks, since they were, indeed, personal attacks directed not just against John Edwards but his family. Elizabeth would have had every right to take Coulter on, politically, too, but the personal nature of Coulter's attacks made Elizabeth's responses especially appropriate.

John Edwards made the important points in his Hardball appearance a few minutes ago: people, candidates included, have to speak out against the kind of vicious attacks that Coulter and others regularly dish out. The attacks have not been limited to Edwards. As he pointed on Hardball, Hillary's appearance and Barack Obama's name have been Coulter targets.

These kinds of attacks are not the end of the world, but there is no reason that people have to keep silent about them. If we want political campaigns to be more focused on issues, we should join the Edwards in speaking out against Ann Coulter.

And why shouldn't Edwards use this issue to raise money for his campaign? Campaigns against vicious commentators like Ann Coulter cost money...

Next, it would nice to see a little less of her on television. Will the 24/7 all-news cable stations have the courage to rise to that challenge? As things stand now, they're enablers of Ann Coulter's invective.

See also: Real Hardball: Elizabeth Edwards v. Ann Coulter ... John Edwards' Favorite Book

Digg

Real Hardball: Elizabeth Edwards v. Ann Coulter

I was half-glancing at the early edition of MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, and Chris Matthews' somewhat fawning interview of Ann Coulter. Matthews was asking her some tough-ish questions, but these were interspersed with big smiles and camaraderie, and the tone was positively cocktail-party in comparison to what Matthews did to Michelle Malkin a few years ago.

Then a call came in from Elizabeth Edwards. John Edwards' wife was calling Ann Coulter to account for her persistent personal attacks on John, ranging, as per Coulter's style, from stupid to vicious. (You've no doubt all heard about the "faggot" comment. Now Coulter has switched to rhetorically wishing John had been "killed in a terrorist assassination plot.")

Predictably, Ann Coulter didn't give an inch, and jumped on her high horse about not being about to stop writing books, or change what she writes, because a Presidential candidate's wife asked her.

But Coulter also made another point, which highlights the value of Elizabeth Edwards' call. Coulter chided Elizabeth for calling, instead of her husband, the Presidential candidate, John Edwards making the call.

Coulter's point would have been better taken if the call had been about a political attack she had levied. But Elizabeth was calling about personal attacks, which have no place in political campaigns, and every moral ground for family members to call out and answer.

So kudos to Elizabeth Edwards for standing up for her husband and decency in dialogue and making this call. Let people like Ann Coulter know, if you attack candidates personally, expect their families to come after you.

As for Chris Matthews and Hardball, good that the show put through Elizabeth Edwards' call. But, next time, show a little more outrage when you're interviewing Ann Coulter. Humor and good spirits have their role on 24/7 all-news stations, but Ann Coulter is far more than a laughing matter.

Here's a videoclip of the call, from YouTube:


========================================
See also Hardball II: John Edwards about Ann Coulter and John Edwards' Favorite Book

Digg

Four Imus Fallacies

Not to worry ... I'm not going to turn this blog into a never-ending series of posts about Imus, no longer in the morning or at present anyplace in the media. But I thought I'd offer one concluding contribution, and then back to my regularly scheduled diatribes, barring something new about Imus ...

I've seen a lot of faulty analogies bandied around the media regarding Imus, his insult of the Rutgers women's basketball team, and his firing. I'll discuss (and puncture) four of them here:

1. Why are people offended by Imus, but not by the same kind of language used in rap and hip-hop records and culture?

Poor analogy. Rap and hip-hop make general statements (bad, good, insulting, whatever) about general classes of people in society. Imus insulted real individuals - in fact, women who were not celebrities, but players on a college basketball team. General insults, not specifically directed at you, can be easily ignored. An attack on a real individual cannot - certainly not by that person.
Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.

Bottom line: There's a world of difference between a general insult and a targeted insult. Rap is social commentary, and does not need to be restrained. What Imus said was personally damaging, and has no place in our media or our culture.

2. Imus apologized to the Rutgers women; why don't the Revs Sharpton and Jackson apologize to the Duke lacrosse players, wrongly accused of rape?

Also a poor analogy. Although Sharpton and Jackson do owe the lacrosse players an apology, the two situations are not comparable. Sharpton and Jackson were commenting on an alleged crime. What crime or anything of negative note occurred with the women's basketball team at Rutgers, to warrant Imus's comment? None. In fact, they were in the news because of a positive accomplishment, doing well on the basketball courts. Imus's comment was thus worse than insulting: he attacked people who should have been praised and toasted, not insulted, for their accomplishments.

3. Why don't we go after other media celebrities who traffic in insult - Ann Coulter, Rosie O'Donnell, take your pick - now that Imus has been held to account?

See my response to #1 above: Imus's insults were in a class by themselves. Coulter goes after people who are already in the news about some political or social matter. Her statements are often reprehensible, but they are directed against people who choose to enter the public arena. (Her attack on the widows of 911 was about the worst - the widows, obviously and tragically, did not choose to be widows. But they did decide, bravely, to enter the public arena on post-911 issues). In contrast, Imus went after people who had not entered any arena except the basketball court. Meanwhile, O'Donnell's language is also either directed against other celebrities, or to general classes of people (her remark about the Chinese, for example).

To be clear: None of this excuses the language and behavior of Coulter and O'Donnell - but they are not in the same league of blindsiding, personally-directed insult as what Imus said.

4. If you believe in freedom of speech and the First Amendment, how can you be happy about Imus taken off the air?

Easy: Imus's speech was not restrained, restricted, or fined by the FCC or any part of government. In fact, he is still free to say whatever he likes - that is indeed his right, under the First Amendment to our Constitution.
What he does not have a right to do is say whatever he pleases and be paid millions of dollars to say it, or be given access to a microphone that will broadcast his words to millions of people.

The distinction is crucial. The First Amendment receives an almost daily beating by the FCC, and it is important to focus on that and oppose it. Bringing Imus into the picture only confuses the issue.

In sum: Our culture and our media do not really need to change. Imus needed to go.

Useful links:

Listen to my 20-minute podcast about Imus at Light On Light Through

Memo to Michelle Malkin re: Imus and rap

Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done


Following comments are from my original posting on PaulLevinson.net on 14 April 2007. Feel free to post any new comments right here.

Comments

Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.
Are you saying it's more acceptable to insult a wide range of people than a very specific target?
By that logic, people should dismiss something like a racial slur, because it encompasses a large group of people and not a direct target. It then follows by that logic that Imus' statement would've been more acceptable if he had insulted ALL blacks, for example, instead of singling out the basketball players he insulted, because after all, he'd be insulting a group with a sweeping generalization and not a target specific insult. Seems a little ridiculous, does it not?
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 08:53 PM
Read what I wrote, doctornine.

Does it say anything about insults to general classes of people being "more acceptable"?
In fact, I'm not talking about "acceptability" - what I'm talking about is personal hurt.
And, yes, I stand by my point that an insult directed against a real, specific individual or group of real, identified individuals is much more hurtful, and less easily ignored, than an insult against a general group.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 14, 2007 10:35 PM

Thank you for your response Paul. I appreciate it.
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 10:40 PM

Although Imus should be disciplined for his actions, it bothers me when his comments are deemed racist, when in fact, I believe that they were not. He made a positive comment about the Tennessee women's basketball team just moments before his comment about the Rutgers girls, and I do not believe that this country will make any progress if people have to sit and live in a state of paranoia just in case they make a statement that is considered non-politically correct. I honestly thought that you Professor Levinson, would be much more forgiving for a mistake made by someone who has, over the years, provided such a good commentary and insight into political life as Dom Imus has. Whereas he did make a mistake, isn't it a staple of the university you work for, to forgive?
Posted by: Johnny D at April 15, 2007 02:02 AM

Johnny D - thanks for the comment.
First, let me say that although I'm a professor at Fordham University, I'm in no sense speaking for the university when I comment on public events - either here, or on television and radio, etc.
A fundamental principle of academic life, which Fordham endorses and respects, is that professors speak and write for themselves, presenting their own views on matters of public import.
As for Imus, it's not a question of forgiving.
It's a question of whether CBS and MSNBC wanted to continue to give him the salary and access to their microphones. This a free society, which means corporations have every right to fire employees who, in the corporation's view, are not acting in the corporate interest. That's part of the deal you accept when you take that big salary.
Is Imus a racist? I don't really know - I can't look into his soul.
But, clearly, his statement was racist and sexist.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 15, 2007 10:47 AM

You, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck.
Well, you kinda asked for that.
To expand: Your response to alleged fallacy #2 is wrong in at least two respects. It is not more acceptable to make extravagant statements about people accused of a crime than it is to make them about people not so accused; it is worse, because it does palpable harm to them and their case at a time when the law deems them to be still innocent. Additionally, your statement that they were commenting on an alleged crime is not strictly true; many of their statements ventured into personal slurs on the accused themselves.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 15, 2007 07:15 PM

Thanks Paul, I think the personal attack vs. public you mention is important. However, I think the racial/sexist content of his message must be kept in context. When I watch the clip, it seems clear to me that it is in jest, it is an exaggeration. This may sound stupid, but I believe that because he thought he could tell such a joke, this is actually indicative of how far we have come.
Perhaps Imus thought that because these are frequently used terms they would be appropriate for his crowd, that his crowd would understand the absurdity of such a statement. Deriving that a woman is a ho from basketball footage is absurd. And frankly I didn't even realize 'nappy' was a racist term, I thought it simply meant mussy, or unkempt. I do think that these words, especially in this context, do not carry the same meaning that they might of say 60 years ago. (for example, I think it is great that every other word in rap songs is 'nigga'. I don't think you can kill hurtful words, but you can redefine them which is much more effective.)
I do not think this was as controversial as everyone would like it to be. That it was a personal attack, that is why Imus should apologize /be fired. This matter did not warrant this sort of attention, and I doubt it would have got too far if Sharpton and Jackson hadn't involved themselves. There are very real issues that do harm blacks in America, and I think it is unfortunate that this is what Sharpton and Jackson choose to attack.
Posted by: tobydog at April 15, 2007 10:47 PM

Do you think that the corporations who pulled their advertisements, or even MSBNC and CBS themselves, took the swift action that they did because they were reading the winds of the coming political environment? I mean, the two front runners for the Democratic nominee for president, Clinton and Obama, certainly weighed in on the controversy in public comments.
Imus regularly called Hillary Clinton "Satan" among other less-than-flattering names.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 15, 2007 10:59 PM

Chuck - thanks - I was hoping some reader would rise (sink) to the bait ... and you did! Congratulations! :)
Meanwhile, as to your points about Sharpton and Jackson:
So you seriously think that someone (Imus) who blindsides people for no reason whatsoever is better than someone (Sharpton or Jackson) who comments on people accused (wrongly, it turns out) of a serious crime?
In this country, unlike England, we permit and even encourage discussion of crimes while they are under investigation. Yes, it can do damage to the wrongly accused. But it also can help the wrongly accused, by calling attention to poor prosecutor performance.
Which is just what it did in the Duke case.
Indeed, whatever the motives of Sharpton and Jackson, their comments - along with many others - kept the media focused on Duke, which eventually led to the charges being dropped, the lame Prosecutor resigning, etc.
So, actually, I think Sharpton and Jackson may have done some good, there - again, unlike Imus.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:35 AM

tobydog - but surely you don't think that most women would enjoy being called a "ho'", do you?
John: I think MSNBC and CBS moved almost 100% because sponsors were dropping Imus. That's almost all the suits in charge care about.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:38 AM

Always happy to oblige, son.
Yeah, I do think that it's worse to attack someone who is already beleaguered, who is already under attack by a well-funded and powerful opponent, than it is to attack someone who's on top of their game and totally not expecting it. In the first case, you're piling on and making things worse. In the second, you're easily dismissed by the person, who can just shake their head and wonder if you've really stopped drinking.
Cut the debate-club bullshit and answer honestly: Do you really think that any athlete who's tough enough to master college basketball is going to be affected much by the unjustified rantings of some dried-up radio loudmouth? They won. He's pissed. Waaaah.
As for your disingenuous nonsense about Jackson and Sharpton calling attention to the situation...why would you put an argument like that in your mouth? I wouldn't pick it up with my hands. The only thing their rantings attracted was a lynch mob of idiots. It was their opposition who called attention to the actual injustices of the situation. If you were an honest man, you'd thank them.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 16, 2007 07:45 PM

Chuck - I'm sorry if you think what I've been saying is "bullshit debate" - because I stand by every single word I've written about this.
And to answer your question: I rather doubt that you have much if any real experience with college people at this age and in this situation or similar situations.
I have - as a parent, and much more often (of course) as a college professor, and even more so as a Chair of a Department, where I get to see students who need advice on all kind of things.
And you know what? If anything, being on a successful team makes many people even more vulnerable, because, having succeeded in one area, they feel a lot of pressure to succeed in other areas.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 08:02 PM

If being on a successful athletic team is stressful, do you know what is certainly worse? Being on a successful athletic team and prosecuted for a felony you didn't commit, Paul, that's what. And having half-witted slavering ghouls pile on to you, convict you in the court of public opinion, because your alleged guilt conforms to their nasty political prejudices...that'd be nigh-intolerable.
I guess the worst thing of all would be to have the nation's newspaper of record join in the pile-on, printing ignorant tripe and rancid speculation as fact...and the faculty of your university nod their bespectacled heads and cry "Aw-men". Yeah, by God, that'd be a blow, wouldn't it?
I wish I didn't believe your protestations of sincerity. I could almost tolerate your bad arguments when I thought they were mere casuistry. If the bad reasoning you've displayed here is an example of your real, sincere thought process, I believe you don't deserve your position at Fordham. A professor simply shouldn't be this poor a thinker.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 17, 2007 04:10 AM