Speakeasy forum: The Limbaugh, Beck, Maher etc problem.

I was unaware that journalism had rules or standards that were actually followed to the letter.

By definition, an activist seeks attention for the purpose of getting out their message to as many as they can get to listen. They seek media attention as well. They should expect backlash and welcome it graciously. They are bucking the system and if the majority already felt as they did there would probably be nothing to buck.

this is just one of many reports and I found it to be the most informative regarding her history:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/

Easy, Josh,how about the Biography Channel link:

http://biography-channel.blogspot.com/2012/03/sandra-fluke-biography.html

Take a look at it, Josh.

It's easy to dismiss gender reassignment surgery as weird, etc. but I suppose the argument in favor of covering it would involve the mental health aspects of a person feeling like they are trapped in the wrong body, and how the surgery would improve their mental health. Do I agree? Not sure, but even if I don't, whether Sandra Fluke advocated this also has no bearing on whether the subject she testified about has any merit.

.....to all covered medications, or just birth control pills?

And to clarify, was she calling for 100% free birth control for everyone who wants it, or was she simply asking that birth-control pills be a covered medication under her school's benefits plan? The latter means that there would likely be some cost to her, just like any other prescription where you get an insurance discount.

It's very clear that she's asking that contraceptives be covered by insurance. She is not asking for 100% free pills for everyone who wants them.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/source-obama-to-change-birth-control-rule/1#.T1jF8IFrVvA

President Obama announced a plan today that attempts to accommodate certain religious employers opposed to a rule that would require them to provide access to birth control for women free of charge.

Obama announced that the rule would be tweaked so that in cases where non-profit religious organizations have objections, insurance companies would be required to reach out to employees and offer the coverage directly. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called it "a first step in the right direction."

The Catholic Church seems OK with it.

Don't think that the insurance companies aren't making money hand over fist.

Diana

the Catholic Church is ok with paying the premiums for those insurance policies that are still required to offer the coverage 'directly'.....will those policies be tweaked if the Church themselves own the insurance companies, and if so, how will that work exactly? Even if the employee is willing to pay extra out of their own pockets for the coverage, the CHURCH still owns the insurance company and that would STILL go against their belief.

There is NO amount of tweaking other than a complete exemption that will seem satisfactory, in my opinion....as stated "it's a first step in the right direction" but that doesn't mean that they are OK with it....YET.

legal definition of that is, within the relatively small community of a University to qualify as a public figure. Has she run for local or national office?

One cannot declare a person to be ripe for attack on a whim or just because you don't like what they say except, of course, in over-the-back-fence gossip, which seems to characterize much of what has been said about Ms Fluke.

The issue is moving from a private individual speaking before a Congressional Committee to making quite vicious and unfounded assumptions about her personal behaviour: "pr0stitute", "Set up a camera so we can watch" (paraphrasal of RL), "sl*t", and half a dozen other characterizations, leaving aside those thought up by Glenn Beck.

Additionally the unfairness of journalism comes out in the three day long assault by the very public and biased Rush Limbaugh on this woman's character, followed by a one or two line apology. The apology should have equalled the attack at least in terms of being re broadcast for the same number of days as the attack went on, but there are no rules or guidelines about that. Equally if the person who was attacked goes on to defend themselves in subsequent interviews some will say, "See, she's a public figure." when in the absence of the attack they would have faded back into the woodwork.

I'm sure that Barack Obama's activism in Chicago was covered by Chicago newspapers, but not by the national media until he was appointed to the vacant Senate Seat.

And yes Steve, there are laws which apply to journalism, always supposing you have the money to fight them. The laws which apply to journalism derive from libel suits which have succeeded or failed over the years. I'd say Ms. Fluke should have a pretty good case against Mr. Limbaugh and perhaps Glenn Beck, but I'm not a lawyer, and law is a very obscure and arcane practice.

Rob

cannot knowingly make factually incorrect statements, nor can one write or publish libelous statements about a person without risking legal challenge. In all cases, it is not so much a case of prohibition as creating a situation which makes the publisher liable to legal action. That's the reason RL calls himself an entertainer, despite his long standing concentration on political issues, and his pretensions to authoritativeness. If he called himself a journalist he'd open himself up to a world of challenges. I don't know what Glenn Beck calls himself, maybe a religious broadcaster which is another way of avoiding responsibility for factual errors and distortions. Religious speech is protected speech.

While Will Rogers made comfortable political jokes, Mort Sahl had far more of an edge and a political point of view, both, as entertainers, were exempt from being treated as journalists. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher and Steven Colbert are our current equivalents.

The National Enquirer and papers like it survive on the judgement of whether the sales deriving from a story is worth the cost of the litigation it might produce. Those newspapers do not represent journalism but are more of an appendix to it. A useless vestigial organ, prone to inflammation. It is the big city broadsheets (well, they were once) which make some effort toward accuracy and informativeness that hold the heart of journalism, mostly because they hang around the house for a week and can be referred to later by the fewer and fewer of us who read them. TV news is gone in half an hour, like Chinese food, and spends roughly 1/3 to half a column of text on stories. Newspapers have articles that fill a large page or more and are far more detailed.

So it's not tradition, but legal liability (and deep pockets) that sets the limits on publishing, and it's publishers who pay for the reporting. The tradition derives in part from the time that newspapers were our primary source of information, but equally from the legal precedents that have been set in cases of misrepresentation and fabrication. The surest way to get fired is to screw up a story (Dan Rather), or to fabricate it, as we have seen over the years.

Rob

that I've seen anywhere.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html

Frum is a conservative writer and broadcaster.

Point 1. Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh's verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. ...

Point 2. The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh's tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors. ...

Point 3: Limbaugh's place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz. ...

Point 4: Most fundamentally, why the impulse to counter one outrageous stunt by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why not respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then -- if there's another indecency later -- react to that too, and on its own terms?

I can only remember agreeing with Mr Frum once before, but he has put this whole thing far more clearly and fairly than I possibly could.

Rob

However, I'm not as certain that Rush holds that much sway. I'm sure plenty of Republicans would wish we wore a leash and muzzle. I do wonder who really supports the political talk show folks and that goes for those who lean either way. If I tune in for some need to do penance, I notice that none of the sponsors are merchants I've ever heard of. Certainly that says something about who values their opinions.