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 :
Re: Fire Ed
BThompson
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. · May 27 at 6:27am
Edited on May 27 at 06:43 am
Mr. Thompson, if the above sentence meant to imply that you actually thought there were broadcasting standards that ought to apply, however impaired you find my reading comprehension, I believe you failed to convey that thought.
May '10
Re: Fire Ed
I understand Heather's outrage completely and agree with the likely double-standard. But surely the more effective method (consistent with principles) would be to mount a campaign to let Ed's advertisers know that we find him unworthy of their sponsorship? There is no censorship real or implied in telling a sponsor that you have trouble supporting its products given its support for something so disagreeable.
In any case he has at least acknowledged that he was out of line. FAR more odious to me has been the women of The View insisting that there is nothing wrong with the word he used and that they call each other by that term in fact. The hypocrisy of that ridiculous stance is stomach-turning.
Re: Fire Ed
As for pushing "to force feigned displays of moral rectitude and decency from a network that obviously cares nothing for any of that", let me remind you that intent is not the standard, action is. If one waits for purity of motive that is sufficiently satisfactory, we will have very little good behavior, very little consideration, and very little charity. Human beings are fallen, their motives many, and I'm with Adam Smith, moral philosopher, on this: while we may more loudly applaud the virtuous heart, I'll take action over intention, and accept that tribute that vice pays to virtue, hypocrisy.
I cannot guarantee that getting people to "like" FireEd will accomplish anything. What I can guarantee is that your approach, of not pushing back while our side is actually slandered, will accomplish nothing. Indeed, it will perpetuate the double standard -- low or no standards for the left, and thought-police subjective standards for the right. I'm for objective professional standards of civil conduct for the major news networks, achieved not because they've discovered moral rectitude (that would be a miracle), but because their audience cares. And I'm doing something about it.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 7:57amNov '10
Re: Fire Ed
Here we are agreed. Chivalry, manners, morals: these are essential to preserve in a society. But there's a difference between shaming a man for being vulgar and calling for him to be fired. In my opinion, the former is justice, while the latter is blood lust.
May '10
Re: Fire Ed
Our focus should be on MSNBC viewers, even as we complain about the content offered to them. Think of it like porn. Sure, condemn the providers, but you'll make more headway by showing individual consumers a nobler way.
You're absolutely right that conservatives need to publicly stand up for themselves and exhibit some justified anger. But more important is our interaction with individuals. People are more defensive in group situations. One-on-one conversations are generally more honest, in my experience.
Aug '10
Re: Fire Ed
I like the idea of letting Schultz's advertisers know we find him unworthy of their sponsorship. Who are his advertisers?
Jun '10
Re: Fire Ed
There really is no difference in complaining to MSNBC directly or calling on advertisers to pull ads. Either route is exactly the way to let a vigorous marketplace work its magic. I applaud citizens who complain when museums showcase works of "art" that smear feces on images of the Blessed Virgin or when students and bill-paying parents express outrage that a college professor included live sex acts in his classrooms. As Heather states, standards are only created and adhered to if "the audience cares."
Racial integration was only achieved beause the audience cared. Privately scorning those who denied blacks their civil rights didn't advance the cause one bit. Speaking out did. I could give example after of example of worthy progress being made in all civilizations precisely because the audience cared and was not timid about letting the powers that be know it.
BThompson: standards of civility are important, and it is up to the viewing public to cry foul when broadcasters violate those standards. I think exclaiming "God help us all" in response to viewers voicing their displeasure or offense is a tad hyperbolic. As is calling the push to fire Shultz "blood lust."
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Agreed. The question is how you establish and apply them.
Exactly, I don't think that requires calling for firings and silencing people, though. Shine a light on stupid comments and let people decide for themselves whether to support that type of commentator.
It depends on what you mean by "broadcasting standards". If it means bureaucrats at the FCC telling us what civility is, I repeat, God help us. The minute you let bureaucrats tell you what's okay and what isn't, you're on shaky ground. If it means expecting networks to self-censor and care about the tone of discourse, again, God help us. Their track record speaks for itself. The standards have to be left to the individual. If the market actually values civility, it'll reward those who practice it more than those who don't. You don't have to fire Ed Schultz to argue for civility or demonstrate what it looks like.
Dec '10
Re: Fire Ed
What I don't understand is why they haven't fired him long ago.
They don't need Ed Schultz. He doesn't get good ratings, they could put on any of two-dozen broadcasters to take his place. The whole MSNBC lineup is quite replaceable. I think Maddow actually brings an audience if you look at the ratings. Nobody else.
I looked at Wednesday's ratings. The ratio of MSNBC's ratings to FOX's ratings -- overall or 25-54 -- never breaks 0.6 except for
25-54 at 7 (Shep vs. Hardball) is .66
25-54 at 9 (Hannity vs. Maddow) is .78
Maddow actually holds O'Donnell's audience while Hannity can't hold O'Reilly's.
The Ed show actually beat Greta in 25-54, but that's not typical. Last week the ratio was .54
Of course, suspending a host is an old radio trick to raise the profile of the host and, hopefully, raise ratings.
I don't think it will work with Ed. MSNBC already has a ton of resources at its disposal for promotion. I see this as MSNBC letting him off with a warning.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 12:56pmDec '10
Re: Fire Ed
Politically, I hope they don't fire Ed. We need the albatross around MSNBC's and the liberals' necks.
Nov '10
Re: Fire Ed
Jan-Michael Rives 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." · May 27 at 2:30am
Edited on May 27 at 02:32 am
What, if I may ask, is the difference between finding him "vulgar" and finding him "offensive?"
Nov '10
Re: Fire Ed
I don't think either Heather or Sticker ever once mentioned the FCC or bureaucrats in general.
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Well, Sticker talked about, "a real violation of broadcast standards." The only "real" broadcast standards are the ones the FCC has created, so I don't think it's a stretch to speculate that's what was meant. I certainly understand that phrase might mean something less official and more ambiguous, but at that point I'm at a loss as to how we're defining the term. Hence my qualified, conditional response. Obviously the word Schultz used is ugly, but I don't believe it ran afoul of the FCCs standard of unacceptable words. It certainly runs afoul of good taste, and fairness, and by most people's lights, including mine, of civility. But a huge portion of TV and radio fails that test for me every day. So, I go back to the belief that relying on some poorly defined and unevenly held "broadcast standards" to guide discourse over the public airwaves, except personal standards that form an earnest public response to ugly speech and appeals to the common sense and decency of each individual, is an appeal to nothing.
Jun '10
Re: Fire Ed
"If it means bureaucrats at the FCC telling us what civility is, I repeat, God help us. The minute you let bureaucrats tell you what's okay and what isn't, you're on shaky ground."
But that's not what Heather or I were talking about at all....It's a huge stretch to start speculating about my meaning. You are now insterting the FCC into the discussion only because I called you on your hyperbole. We clearly were advocating market-based solutions --- letting MSNBC know that the viewing public found his conduct beyond the pale & a fire-worthy offense.
Go back and read Heather's posts. She called for action over intention because she is wise enough to know that networks have no innate decency. They only change their course of action when they realize the audience cares. Your last post talks about "personal standards that form an earnest public response to ugly speech and appeals to the common sense and decency of each individual."
If that's what you believe, why would you object to Heather suggesting that we base our complaints on exactly those standards of decency to which broadcasters have always been held?
Jan '11
Re: Fire Ed
Actually I lumped the urge to impose standards on MSNBC in with FCC nannyism in my first post, before you even jumped in. I also found it of a piece with PCism. That's because it seeks to impose behavior on people or organizations even though they don't believe in the standards or sentiments those imposing the behavior hold.
And they still won't even if FireEd succeeds. Forcing people to behave in insincere ways doesn't change minds. It shows a lack of confidence in your ability to win with ideas. MSNBC will just hire someone else as over the top as Schultz. All FireEd will have accomplished is showing that conservatives can be as whiny and intrusive as the left.
FireEd isn't about promoting civility. It won't accomplish that. It's about punishing Ed Schultz. We aren't his or MSNBC's nanny. We don't get to make them do things they don't believe in.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 4:57pmJan '11
Re: Fire Ed
StickerShock: "personal standards that form an earnest public response to ugly speech and appeals to the common sense and decency of each individual."
If that's what you believe, why would you object to Heather suggesting that we base our complaints on exactly those standards of decency to which broadcasters have always been held?
Because she's not advocating merely a complaint. She's advocating the telling of private corporations what their behavior and hiring standards should be and she believes that forcing people to behave insincerely will make the world a better place. That's exactly how the PC police think, and I'm not on board with it. Conservatives respect consciences and don't expect everyone to behave like angels. They make their arguments for what is correct and trust in the average person's common sense to be receptive to good ideas.
Edited on May 27, 2011 at 4:49pmMay '10
Re: Fire Ed
I think the punishment itself reveals the misogyny of MSNBC. One week? One WEEK?!?!
What if Ed had called Herman Cain a "right wing n-word"?
or called Marco Rubio a "right wing s-word"?
Would that be only a week?
Apr '11
Re: Fire Ed
Agreed.
Besides, I don't know why we'd want to make things easier for the Left by taking down their one of their biggest clowns.
We should, however, constantly point out the hypocrisy, irrationality, and sheer hate that issues from the Left.
Edited on May 30, 2011 at 8:38am