| |
The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog
by k at 9:36 am EDT, May 16, 2007 |
In the good old days when print was king, nobody spoke ill of the dead, and if someone did, nobody else would know about until the obituaries came out the next day. As we all know, with the rise of the blogosphere things have changed; still, the death of Jerry Falwell today seems to have set new heights in terms of both haste and venom. Here is a sampling: The friendly folk at Wonkette are typical: “At a time like this, people deserve sympathy and good wishes … except for Falwell,” the blog notes. “Over his long career as a vile televangelist building an empire of bigotry from the donations of poor people, Falwell has supported South African apartheid, called AIDS an invention of Jesus to punish gays, attacked Martin Luther King and U.S. civil rights, and blamed 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals.”
[ Could the NYT come off any more fucking stodgy and pretentious? "The good old days when print was king" my ass. I'm not saying I don't miss certain things about those days, like journalistic integrity and well conducted research, but crimony. Talk about self serving crap. I thought the Times was better than that. As for the premise, it's also stupid. People have always spoken ill of the dead in certain forums, particularly when the person who died was a fucking intolerant, hypocritical asshole. The fact that the web now shows us that hardly bothers me. I'm not saying everyone should just go free-for-all and toss respect out the window, but there's a time and a place for haste and venom, and I think the Times sounds antiquated when they argue for a return to a time when everything was better. Not to mention the fact that I don't think that time has ever existed. Everytime i hear "the good old days" utterered seriously I cringe. It's a myth, and it always has been. -k] |
| |
RE: The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog
by Decius at 4:54 pm EDT, May 16, 2007 |
k wrote:
[ Could the NYT come off any more fucking stodgy and pretentious? "The good old days when print was king" my ass. -k]
Whatev, CNN was practically dancing on his grave on their front page yesterday. I don't think its appropriate. No I didn't like his politics, but I have some respect for his family. His influence hardly matters now. |
|
| | |
RE: The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog
by k at 7:00 pm EDT, May 16, 2007 |
Decius wrote: k wrote:
[ Could the NYT come off any more fucking stodgy and pretentious? "The good old days when print was king" my ass. -k]
Whatev, CNN was practically dancing on his grave on their front page yesterday. I don't think its appropriate. No I didn't like his politics, but I have some respect for his family. His influence hardly matters now.
You claim that "CNN was practically dancing on his grave"... i didn't check CNN yesterday, because I don't really like them very much these days. If they were, in fact, doing that, then shame on them... mainstream, ostensibly "professional" journalists ought not to, or at least ought to do so without any hint of joy. But there's a difference between glorying in someone's death and telling the truth about them. The man was a hatemonger and I will certainly not hold anyone in a negative light who says as much. The problem i had with the Times quote in particular was the bemoaning of an elder age when people didn't *hear* all the bad stuff, but couched in language implying that such discourse never existed before. The internet has changed things, and the Times' position here is that it's been for the worse. I feel like the web has merely exposed attitudes that were heretofore kept hidden away. I think this is a better state of affairs, personally, even if it's uncomfortable for people. I do think even bloggers should adhere to some semblance of decorum if they expect to be taken seriously and treated with the same respect as their (again, ostensibly) professional peers. Some of them -- say, gays and feminists, at the very least -- have a pretty genuine reason to be glad this guy won't be demonizing them (almost literally) any more, however. I can't blame them for saying so. As for the argument that "His influence hardly matters now", i call bullshit. His "ministry" reached thousands and thousands of people and has influenced the tone in this country -- for the worse -- for a great many years. His legacy, if he has one at all, will be of hate, intolerance and oppression. Those who will follow him will continue to do damage to the free and fair society I think this country ought to stand for. I'd rather not let them think they'll be lauded for it. If anything, my main fear in the media's negative portrayal of the man is that it'll add fuel to the asinine "Christians are an oppressed culture in America!" meme. Not that such people need any further excuse to feel self righteous, but I expect some serious chest beating over the next few weeks. "Oh, how wrong to villianize Falwell!" Whatever, I say; the guy was a villian... I don't see the need to pull punches on that fact. |
|
The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog
by ubernoir at 8:07 am EDT, May 16, 2007 |
In the good old days when print was king, nobody spoke ill of the dead, and if someone did, nobody else would know about until the obituaries came out the next day. As we all know, with the rise of the blogosphere things have changed; still, the death of Jerry Falwell today seems to have set new heights in terms of both haste and venom. Here is a sampling: The friendly folk at Wonkette are typical: “At a time like this, people deserve sympathy and good wishes … except for Falwell,” the blog notes. “Over his long career as a vile televangelist building an empire of bigotry from the donations of poor people, Falwell has supported South African apartheid, called AIDS an invention of Jesus to punish gays, attacked Martin Luther King and U.S. civil rights, and blamed 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals.”
not just me then |
|
|
