Fire Ed
Heather Higgins ·
May 26, 2011 at 8:29pm
Conservative talk show hosts today were turning the other cheek about Ed Schultz's deliberately demeaning comments about Laura Ingraham.
But we all know that had Sean Hannity, for example, said anything remotely like that about Rachel Maddow, no apology would have sufficed, and he'd already be gone.
Civility seems to be a one-way street in some minds, and we who are sick of the double standard can now exercise our own right of free and civil expression by going to FireEd and telling MSNBC/NBCUniversal that they should not condone such offensive, cretinous comments. Like it, and tweet away!
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Nov '10
Re: Fire Ed
No. I hate it when liberals do this. I hate it even more when we try to do it.
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
As a conservative and proponent of making speech more free, not less, I can't agree. People should be encouraged to speak freely so that others can judge the speaker and their words for themselves. I don't need nannies at the FCC telling me what my ears are too sensitive to hear, nor hate speech codes, nor even honor firings to uphold the reputation of a slighted member of the professional windbag class. I don't want to promote reverse political correctness by holding the left to the same stupid standard that they hold us. An apology is plenty here. I frankly find keeping a humbled and exposed Schultz around and reminding him of his crassness whenever he gets too uppity or foolish a wonderful prospect.
Edited on May 26, 2011 at 8:52pmJul '10
Re: Fire Ed
I'm with Jan-Michael and BThompson. If crazy Ed can attract a large enough audience to pay his way, let him be. There are plenty of people on the other side who would love to silence conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; let's not play their game.
Re: Fire Ed
If one does not believe in bureaucrats or speech codes, then as a corollary one ought to believe in a vigorous marketplace, which in a free society includes a spontaneous feedback mechanism, in this case pointing out a) that freedom of political speech provides no entitlement to a platform, and b) the rest of us who share the public square get be heard about what is offensive and what not.
Moreover, if you read the FB comments already posted, there is also a fair contingent who have had it with the cant of talking about tolerance and civility but not practicing it.
Ed Schultz should say whatever he wants to say, but even if it may be legally permitted to slander and dehumanize a public figure, that doesn't make it right. If enough customers find it offensive, MSNBC/NBC might want to think about whether this is the right man to amplify with a microphone.
May '10
Re: Fire Ed
Therein lies the problem. We're not customers of MSNBC. I'm not, at least. Non-customers have a right to voice their ire at being insulted, but the company doesn't have a strong incentive to care.
This is Ed Schultz. An off-hand sexual slur is mild by comparison, both in offense and in effect. His apology is worthless, like MSNBC's pretenses of integrity and credibility.
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Of all the stupid, mendacious things that come out of Schultz's mouth, this is small potatoes as far as I'm concerned. It was crass, vulgar, disrespectful, and ugly, but it was really just name calling. I find the falsehoods about conservativism in general and the specious, distorted charges he throws out as his bread and butter everyday more ugly and worthy of silencing than this type of grade school taunting.
All of the talk show hosts make their bones by stirring the pot and being provocative. They thrive on picking fights and being blowhards. Some are more over the top than others, and I obviously find a lot more value in the ones whose opinions I agree with, but they've chosen to sling mud as public figures for money. That doesn't make anything you say to or about them fair, it does mean that it comes with the territory. The last thing a strong, conservative women needs is to be seen as benefitting from a politically correct standard.
If people want to support Schultz after being such a pig, let them. It just exposes their willingness to lie down with swine. I welcome that clarity.
Edited on May 26, 2011 at 9:45pmApr '11
Re: Fire Ed
I was accidentally listening to Stephanie Miller for a few minutes this morning and she said that she's called things that are ten times worse than that every day by many right wing talk show hosts. I guess it's wishful thinking. I listen to all kinds of right wing radio and I never hear her name mentioned period. Poor thing. And by the way. LIAR.
Re: Fire Ed
Goodness. When I saw his lip trembling like that, I forgave him immediately. I don't want to live in a world where the occasional dumb comment, obviously sincerely regretted, is cause for a witch-hunt.
Aug '10
Re: Fire Ed
I don't think he should be fired, just asked to apologize--which he did, in a rather wooden, insincere manner. I think it's good that liberals often display their nastiness on the air, to a degree that goes way beyond what conservatives ever dish out. Hiding that disparity by shutting up all the leftists obscures the difference. After all, it isn't that conservatives in the media are more polite because all the rude ones were fired--for the most part, we genuinely are nicer.
Aug '10
Re: Fire Ed
Who the heck is Stephanie Miller? With all the right wing talk radio I listen to, I ought to recognize that name. And what's ten times worse than "talk radio [edited']"?
Editors note: We don't encourage answers to that question. If it's ten times worse, it violates the CoC.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 3:23amNov '10
Re: Fire Ed
Heather Higgins: If one does not believe in bureaucrats or speech codes, then as a corollary one ought to believe in a vigorous marketplace, which in a free society includes a spontaneous feedback mechanism
[....]
Ed Schultz should say whatever he wants to say, but even if it may be legally permitted to slander and dehumanize a public figure, that doesn't make it right. If enough customers find it offensive, MSNBC/NBC might want to think about whether this is the right man to amplify with a microphone.
I'm just sort of sick of the feigned outrage and reheated apology that we've come to expect in these situations. I'd bet a good sum of money that Laura Ingraham is not actually outraged, and that Ed Schultz is not actually sorry.
If MSNBC do decide to terminate his contract, I hope to God it's because he regularly commits the sin of being at once vulgar and boring, rather than because someone, somewhere, at some point found him "offensive."
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 2:32amJun '10
Re: Fire Ed
"The last thing a strong, conservative women needs is to be seen as benefitting from a politically correct standard."
Wait.....are you saying that that calling a woman a [redacted] on the airwaves would have been OK before political correctness overtook America?
I would bet money that Ingraham is indeed outraged, She happens to be a devout Catholic & a woman of high character. [redacted] is an ugly, vile word. But she is one smart cookie and knew how to throw back a witty response making Schultz look even more pathetic. Ingraham came out looking strong because she knows that's what big girls who play in the big leagues must do. (In fact, it's always a good way to handle a situation like this. Think of the perfectly worded terse remark with which a Miss Manners would respond.)
Conversely, it is up to decent & chivalrous people to stick up for her, and all women, by letting MSNBC know they should fire a man who calls a woman a [redacted]. This isn't some idiotic reaction to using the word "niggardly." It's not political correctness. It's a real violation of broadcasting standards in a "vigorous marketplace."
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 6:37amMar '11
Re: Fire Ed
The term under discussion does have a certain pedigree, though.
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
I don't think, it's okay to say what he said. I'm saying I don't think we should respond to it by calling for him to be fired. You respond to bad speech with good speech and let the "vigorous marketplace" sort it out.
Thanks, up until you told me, I was a little unsure.
Exactly, and as you note, thats how it should be handled. Laura is a big girl and does't need people talking about her like avictim who needs to be protected from the mean men with potty mouths.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 6:39amJan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Chivalry calls for us to point out Schultz was wrong and remind people of Ingraham's decency. It doesn't require us to play thought cop and get someone fired. As for "broadcasting standards," if that's where you want to set the bar and what you propose we use to guide how to deal with this, God help us all.
If MSNBC wants to fire Schultz out of their own sense of decency, more power to them. If advertisers want to express outrage by pulling their support, good for them. If his audience wants to stop watching him because they realize now what pig he is, Hallelujah! But forcing people or a network to do something that their own consciences aren't telling them to do, doesn't feel like vindication to me.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 6:43amRe: Fire Ed
Thank you StickerShock. I know Laura, she is tough, and she did laugh this off. But practicing chivalry on her behalf, and against all demeaning defamation, is called for, regardless of whether she's fainting or standing tall.
The lowest standard, the one to which we've largely devolved, is whether something is legal, and the assumption now, for fear of being "judgmental", is that if it's legal then you oughtn't complain.(Or BThompson's standard, which apparently is that he doesn't know where the standards ought to be, so lets just chuck the concept.) But legality is only the beginning; there are objective standards which predate political correctness regarding what constituted civil discourse, and what did not.
A vibrant public square is more effective with civility; maintaining it requires a willingness to say when something is shameful. Will MSNBC care and fire Schultz? No. But if enough people Like it, will their hosts perhaps think twice about what they say, and would that be a good thing? Yes.
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
NIce strawman. If that's what passes for reading comprehension from you, it's little wonder you'd push to force feigned displays of moral rectitude and decency from a network that obviously cares nothing for any of that, and feel like you were actually accomplishing something.
Aug '10
Re: Fire Ed
Now that Schultz has exposed himself as the vulgar, hateful bully he actually is, and followed it up with a squirming, phoney apology, I'm not sure I want him disappearing from public view too quickly.
Nov '10
Re: Fire Ed
Reel it in, folks.