Jackson Free Press

Former President Bill Clinton was not the biggest draw for me this month at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies' national convention in Little Rock. I don't dig liars. Personally, I was more excited about the luncheon the day before when my staff brought home six awards—including first-place honors in newswriting for reporter Adam Lynch.

President Clinton had disappointed me in a dramatic fashion during his presidency with a string of lies and cover-ups that eventually led me to decide that, in good conscience, I had to support his impeachment. After all, I would have had he been Republican. It would be dishonest of me to excuse his actions because he is some cartoonish caricature of what I think I believe.

In today's public dialogue and politics, that means I'm an anomaly. Daring. Different. Independent. A pain in the ass.

Clinton did make a lot of statements at the convention that I appreciated—like his comments about not setting policy based on ideology rather than evidence. In a world where science is simply ignored in service of politics, and to our detriment, this cannot be said enough.

He said he appreciated what we as alternative-to-the-corporate media do, while providing warnings about losing sight of the bigger picture. "You fill a void in national political life," he said, adding that our weeklies are "more community-oriented" than today's dailies, as we sit here in Jackson with the world's largest newspaper company trying to run us out of business.

He then said something I really liked: "By and large, political coverage nationally tends to divide people into two-dimensional cartoons. … You tend to fill in the blanks more, and I thank you for that."

Ain't that the truth? You're wrong, I'm right. She's right, he's left. Not a Republican? Must be a Democrat. Dislike Bush? Must be a communist. Not a Democrat? Must be racist.

When I think of this either-or, whiplash journalism that the corporate media push, I feel a little sick to my stomach. Such an approach, which masquerades as "objectivity," is the exact opposite. And it's certainly not honest. Think about it. When do the loudest two buttwipes give "both sides," and thus the "complete" story on anything?

Worse, the cartooning happens precisely because the media are terrified of being called bad names. I've never met a more thin-skinned bunch of folks in my life! So what if some radical-right wingnut calls you a member of the "liberal media"? To that guy, anybody who thinks that it's OK for the government to collect taxes is a commie.

Same goes for the opposite extreme, even though we don't have to dodge it quite as often these days. Two of the worst "trolls" I've ever had to evict from the Jackson Free Press Web site were angry nutballs (my word for crazy lefties), who seemed furious that the JFP wouldn't help overthrow the system right then and there. We were blasted conservatives to these folks, and that's just fine with me.

Where the real nasty-fool stuff happens is when one extreme is allowed by the media to subvert folks they don't agree with into monsters—a serious problem discussed by linguistics expert Deborah Tannen in her book, "The Argument Culture." There is simply nothing useful about trying to have a conversation with an extremist who assumes that, say, just because one does not care for President Bush, one must be a frothing-at-the-mouth hippie-commie. That's just dumb.

Today's mainstream media is feeding into this cartoonization of American politics and culture. When I returned to Jackson from Little Rock, I had Clinton's talk on my brain. I was also thinking about Ann Coulter's disgusting comments about the 9-11 widows who dared to question her precious Bush administration. In her new book, she calls them the "Witches of New Brunswick," and says, "How do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?" She accused them of "enjoying their husbands' deaths"—because she disagrees with their political views.

What's remarkable to me is not that there is an idiot like Ann Coulter out there getting rich off being tasteless—but that she finds success because she is taken seriously enough by the mainstream media to be published on a regular basis, and not just in wingnut media. Every week, her glowing mug appears above her column in The Clarion-Ledger, for one.

Back in Jackson, I found a defensive column by editorial director David Hampton justifying why he runs Coulter's column. He calls her "mean-spirited," and says that her 9-11 comments "pushed the boundaries of good taste and reason. … She's also smart and uses sarcastic wit and name-calling to bash liberals. … Readers either love or hate her." Then he played right into the argument-culture mindset: "The same goes for Molly Ivins. She is merciless when it comes to Bush."

Did you catch that move? He just made Ivins an opposite-but-equal cartoon figure—she's like Coulter, but she's a leftie. Meantime, agree with her or not, Ivins is a hard-nosed journalist who does heavy research and bases her opinions on facts.

Coulter, on the other hand, has a history of plagiarizing and misrepresenting facts, and uses her opinions to shape the "facts" she presents as evidence. It's a fallacy to compare the two; George Will would be more apt.

Comparing Ivins and Coulter is like using a quote from the KKK to "balance" something said by the NAACP (as seen more than once in The Clarion-Ledger). One is a terrorist group; one isn't. Where's the "objectivity" there? The equality?

Alas, corporate media value money above all else. Coulter sells; therefore, The Clarion-Ledger must run her, no matter how disgusting and unfactual her statements. "Why anybody wants to watch people screaming at one another … is beyond me," Hampton wrote, "but it is popular."

What is creepy is that Hampton seems to think he is taking higher ground by using editorial space for Coulter that could be devoted to thinking individualists who don't fit easily into this box or that. How about more local columnists with something to say about our city? How about a progressive Republican? A conservative Democrat? An unpredictable independent who prefers fact to fiction?

Most disheartening was this one by Hampton: "When any columnist crosses the line of offensiveness, decency or taste, we won't publish it." It would be intriguing to know what one would have to say to cross that line there, Mr. Hampton.

Oh, and find a woman for your editorial board while you're at it. Surely there's one somewhere in the state who meets your paper's high standards.

Previous Comments

ID

72819

Comment

I remember Andrea Malloy telling us at a south jackson coalition meeting (I'm pretty sure it was Andrea....) that if we are tired of seeing only the negatives parts of our city, the best thing for us to do is NOT watch the negative things and request more positive. Because at the end of the day, it's all about the ratings.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-28T13:52:42-06:00

ID

72820

Comment

Yes, but in Mr. Hampton's case, apparently people are requesting more positive columns—or at least less hateful and offensive columns—and he tries to pretend that he's just trying to make sure all voices are represented. No media have to represent truly disgusting voices—and usually only do so to help sell papers. It'd be one thing if they had a wide variety of voices represented, but they don't. They don't have a woman on their editorial board. They don't have a woman columnist who writes about real issues, other than entertainment and puffery. Why take up valuable space with a column by a woman who doesn't give a damn about accuracy, not to mention basic human decency? It was hard to beat the column he wrote a while back justifying why his paper endorsed Bush and then Melton, but this one managed to for me. It truly treats us like we're idiots who can't tell the difference between an outspoken opinion writer who uses facts and one who will say anythign just to call people who don't agree with her "traitors." It's a sign of what that paper has become—especially when the man known as the most progressive editor would write this kind of illogical tripe.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-28T13:57:50-06:00

ID

72821

Comment

Very good commentary, Donna. That second paragraph leaves me reeling. I know you're right; but in a game of cheating chess, I can't get too mad at the one who cheated the best. Not talking about cheating on Hillary here. Clearly this was wrong. I need redemption.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-28T14:15:05-06:00

ID

72822

Comment

At the time, though, Ray, we didn't have Bush's shenanigans to compare him to. Not that that should be the standard anyhow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-28T14:17:53-06:00

ID

72823

Comment

Yeah, it's really hard to swallow the country based upon God and then have leaders who lie, cheat and steal as "just doing their jobs" no matter WHO they are. No woman on the editorial board? Is journalism not an industry that has more women than men?

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-28T14:27:10-06:00

ID

72824

Comment

Yeah, I don't get it, Emily. They can't seem to find a woman in the state of Mississippi qualified to write political columns for them a couple times a week!?!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-28T14:33:55-06:00

ID

72825

Comment

Ok. I don't like Clinton any more, but I'm voting for Hillary.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-28T14:43:15-06:00

ID

72826

Comment

After much deliberation and soul searching I'm back on the Biilie Clinton bandwagon. The good outweights the bad, and the game was dirty before he came along. "In a game of dirty pool, he who is the dirtiest win." See the Book of Frank, Chapter 1, verse 6.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-29T08:00:02-06:00

ID

72827

Comment

I don't care about women on the editorial board. I just want good writing. If its all women I don't care. Same reason I don't care for labels on feminist writers, black writers, gay writers etc. To me, good writing is good writing. I have a great book which I highly recommend, The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. Now someone might call that a book by a Euro writer or dead white guy etc. When you read the book you are reading a collection of opinions as diverse as you can find anywhere. I read Gore Vidal because his writing is so damn good, not who he is. I read Ms. Ladd because I find the writing thought-provoking at times, not because she is a woman. Now someone could ask Mr. Hampton why he carries Coulter and not Michelle Malkin or Mona Charen anymore if we are going to go down that path.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-29T09:00:44-06:00

ID

72828

Comment

Jimmy, you are absolutely right. Good writing is good writing no matter who's doing it or how they label themselves. Or how others label the writer. (a lesson I learned as a writer...go ahead and decide who you are, or someone else will label you something you're not....) That goes along with what Donna was saying I think. We've *got* to stop putting people in little boxes. I care about a woman being on the board because I strongly believe that men and woman as a whole have a different perspective of the world. Same as other cultures, races, etc. It's not good or bad...but it IS different. So when we are choosing what to focus our resources on and what to put on the front page (especially the "tits" part of the paper....above the fold....a lesson I also learned my first year as a reporter....), we need to make sure we include all perspectives.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-29T10:00:56-06:00

ID

72829

Comment

Yes, but Jimmy, I say different things in different ways because I am a woman. I'm proud of that fact. That's why a diversity of voices is vital.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-29T10:22:52-06:00

ID

72830

Comment

I detest the fact that so many people think I am a Democrat just because I criticize Bush. That goes to show the influence of media on people's opinions. And then there's the way Melton played the media like a Wurlitzer so he could get beaucoup press...

Author

Harville

Date

2006-06-30T02:47:11-06:00

ID

72831

Comment

Jimmy writes: I don't care about women on the editorial board. I just want good writing. If its all women I don't care. Same reason I don't care for labels on feminist writers, black writers, gay writers etc. Hell, I'll go a step further: I don't care for labels on all that stuff in the Spices aisle. I just want good seasonings! And the next time I go to the pharmacist, I'm going to ask them not to pay too much attention to the dosage information--because all I want is good medicine! That was silly, but I think you get the point. As a radical feminist, I believe that gender is largely a social construct. As an antiracist, I believe that race is largely a social construst. As a fairly radical anti-heterosexist, I believe that most of what we call sexual orientation is a social construct. But as a realist, I know that this is not some perfect egalitarian world and that all three matter. One hell of a lot. They shouldn't, and they matter less in some cases than others, but they matter. If we lived in a post-sexist world, an all-male editorial board would not bother me. But we don't. And because we don't, that means that women are being excluded and their voices aren't being heard. Given the amount of sexist coverage that there is in the media industry--and anyone who doesn't believe it exists should bookmark Feministing for a few weeks--I wonder to what extent this problem is still more or less universal. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-30T05:31:33-06:00

ID

72832

Comment

Here's a transcript of the full Clinton speech to AAN if anyone is interested.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-30T11:22:11-06:00

ID

72833

Comment

You know I want to read it. I'm his biggest fan.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-30T11:24:11-06:00

ID

72834

Comment

It's a good speech. One joke at AAN is that we were all going to publish his reading list afterwatch. That part is such a contrast to the current president, who doesn't seem to care to know what is going on around him in the world.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-30T11:27:51-06:00

ID

72835

Comment

I think you will find bush is much better read than you think he is. Same for Limbaugh. Forget the politics. People think they are stupid and when you see interviews with them you find they do read quite a bit. In Limbaughs case William F Buckley gave him a reading list early on (not a bad idea by the way). Making decisions has nothing to do with how well read you are.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-30T11:35:33-06:00

ID

72836

Comment

Jimmy, Bush SAYS he doesn't read much. This isn't about politics. It's about a president who's not very interested in the world around him—outside material that supports his beliefs. Making decisions has everything to do with how well educated you are. And reading is one damn fine way to get educated.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-30T11:37:40-06:00

ID

72837

Comment

I agree reading is one fine way to be educated. ;-) However, some of the stupidest leaders you have ever seen were also the most educated and well read (McNamara comes to mind). I've also seen interviews with Bush and he mentioned books he'd read or was reading at the time. and by the way, Clinton didn't pay much attention either. It was either Woolsey or Perry that said in his first term he only received half a dozen or less briefings from CIA in the morning covering the world that Reagan and bush had received pretty much every morning. I will disagree with making decisions relying on education as much you you state it is. I think experience and the willingness to learn from mistakes has alot more to do with being a leader and making decisions. One of my main problems with Bush is he will not fire anyone. No one under him makes a mistake. For example, 9/11, no one was dsciplined. No one resigned or was forced to. The CIA can botch alot of things and nothing happens to them. Brown and Chertoff can screw up FEMA and the Katrina response and nothing happens to them. One thing about Clinton and Reagan is they would not hesistate to get rid of people when it was necessary. Bush seems to think it is a weakness not to fire anyone when actually it may show you are in charge and are not afraid of looking weak for getting rid of someone.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-30T11:47:06-06:00

ID

72838

Comment

Just sent you an article from the Wall Street Journal that was about a clash between two colonels in Iraq (if anyone else wants it email me). One is Harvard Educated, comes from the Pentagon etc and is clueless how to be a real leader. The other has a college education but has more experience in combat and the real world. Just proves my point that experience, a willingness to learn, listen, and ask questions, make for a much better leader than one who is highly educated.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-30T12:02:14-06:00

ID

72839

Comment

Don't get me wrong, Jimmy. I'm not talking about fancy degrees here. I know there are some numbskulls from the Ivies. I mean, Bush went to Yale. ;-) And I, too, believe in real-world experience, horse sense, etc. and so on. It's take a combination of ways of being truly educated. (That's why I have a problem with arguments about "excellent" private-school educations that offer so little real-world education.) What I'm talking about is basic curiosity and openness to ideas not driven by ideology. I mean, he doesn't seem to think that all the scientific evidence about the problems associated with global warming have credence. Come on: Only someone absolutely blinded by ideology can argue that at this point. And, uh, Bush doesn't exactly have a lot of real-world—and certainly not combat—experience, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-30T12:05:48-06:00

ID

72840

Comment

That was one thing I did like about Reagan. Had been a broadcaster, president of a union (even if SAG), governor, yeah, actor and had some idea what the military was like even if served in the film part of it, etc. had worked as a kid as a lifeguard. Point is he had had SOME experience in the real world. ALot more than Clinton or Bush. Sadly, I think you will see them more like htose two and not like Reagan, people who go the college route, become a lawyer or similar, then get into politics, and not much experience outside of that whole process. Personally I thought that article I sent you was a pretty good read. And I can say the best officers usually tended to be enlisted first as opposed to the ROTC guys.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-30T12:32:12-06:00

ID

72841

Comment

I should add that I know Clinton isn't perfect in any way. He didn't even have a perfect record as to the poor. He supported welfare and crime bills that were quite conservative and mean spirited to the poor. Jimmy, I like one thing about Reagan too : he's gone, and shall never return. Smile.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-07-03T16:02:24-06:00

ID

72842

Comment

Hre's an alternative view to Mr. Hampton's—from Editor & Publisher magazine: Craig Durrett, editorial page editor of the Shreveport (La.) Times, revealed in a column in his paper that he is considering dropping Ann Coulter as a columnist, and in fact, has "come close" before. It's a matter of style, not ideology, he explained, and if she got the boot he would replace her with another conservative columnist. "My opinion: She is more about entertainment and self-promotion, understanding that shock and outrage translate into publicity that feeds into her quest for media airtime and column space," he wrote. "Her comments about several women who were made widows on Sept. 11, 2001, is a prime example." He also cited the analysis of Republican B. Jay Cooper, former deputy press secretary to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush: "To me, Ann Coulter's exercise of her right to free speech is the political equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. She crosses the line of decency.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-05T12:19:43-06:00

ID

72843

Comment

I want to reiterate that one of Hampton's sleights of hand that I found remarkable was, somehow, equating Ivins' criticism of Bush (which is her opinion and backed by research) with Coulter's attacks on all liberals (all "traitors," she likes to say). Since when is this a logical comparison?!? It's a fallacy, pure and simple. Hampton: he’s also smart and uses sarcastic wit and name-calling to bash liberals. … Readers either love or hate her.” Then he played right into the argument-culture mindset: “The same goes for Molly Ivins. She is merciless when it comes to Bush.” What would be a parallel construction would be using an example of personal attacks by Ivins on an entire group of people, not just one person. This is absurd argument here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-05T12:23:09-06:00

ID

72844

Comment

I find Ivins' column rather dull, but I would agree that her arguments tend to have more substance than Coulter. Even Bill O'Reilly makes more substantive arguments than AC (and for me carries more credibility) just by being less reliant on ad hominem attacks.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-05T12:45:47-06:00

ID

72845

Comment

More fuel for the anti-Coulter fire: Well, Ann Coulter may be "liberal" in one respect, anyway. The New York Post reported Sunday that author/columnist Coulter "cribbed liberally in her latest book" and also in several of her syndicated columns, according to a plagiarism expert. John Barrie, creator of the iThenticate plagiarism-probing system, claimed he found at least three examples of what he called "textbook plagiarism" in the new Coulter book "Godless" after he ran its text through the program. He also discovered verbatim copying in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers by Universal. The Post ain't exactly a bastion of liberalism. But, as Hampton might say, so what if she plagiarizes? She's just so popular.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-06T12:00:55-06:00

ID

72846

Comment

I would be in favor of the C-L dumping Ann for a "sensible" conservative. I'd like to think there's another one they could replace her with. Whatever happened to Mona Charen? Didn't read much of her, but at least my stomach wouldn't get upset reading her columns.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-07-06T14:36:25-06:00

ID

72847

Comment

Just ran across this, hat tip to Feministe: The only Ann Coulter interview worth listening to. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-12T02:07:56-06:00

ID

72848

Comment

Libs getting a chuckle at Adam Corolla, I wonder if they found the Man Show funny as well? Adams is such a world class "American Genius!" He really put it to that coulter gal didn't he, SUCH CLASS, SUCH NON-HATE! That audio hurt my stomach... a bunch of libs with relativistic morality sitting around baiting someone who may have given them a run for their intellectual money, and before any debate... "Let's just hang up on her" ha, ha how funny we are in a college dormitory way... how trendy... how cutting edge... look out howard here comes adam fast approaching riding the coatails of like-minded journalists in the deep south! Be careful who you use to advance your immaturity Tom... it's telling.

Author

Shrute2

Date

2006-07-15T16:44:21-06:00

ID

72849

Comment

I write here so the lib social tribes can't claim full ownership of the ideas in this forum.

Author

Shrute2

Date

2006-07-15T16:46:05-06:00

ID

72850

Comment

Shrute, I'd hold off on the Ad hominem. I've known Tom longer than the internet's been around, and one thing you can't accuse him of is "immaturity". Questioning ideas is fine, attacking people will get you on Donna's bad side very quickly.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-07-15T17:15:42-06:00

ID

72851

Comment

shrute, you think everyone here is a liberal eh? majority of board probably leans that way but I would not mistake this for a daily kos or dem. underground site either. Alot of stuff posted on those would not be allowed on these forums.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-07-15T20:08:42-06:00

ID

72852

Comment

Jimmy is right. I keep trying to get my conservative leaning husband to post on here. The thing is, in my mind the divisive "two-team" liberal/conservative media frenzy causes more damage than anything else. this is one site where I've seen people truly disagree and stay civil and I like that. Minds working side by side may solve things that need to be solved.

Author

Izzy

Date

2006-07-16T10:09:06-06:00

ID

72853

Comment

I've been offine for the weekend. Thanks, Jimmy, for policing in my absence. Shrute, the only person here who takes "full ownership" would be me (and my partner Todd Stauffer). You are posting on a privately owned site, and you are going to check the attacks at the door if you care to post here. If you're here just to show other people who is boss, then understand that it is not you, and move on. Otherwise, you are welcome to post your opinions respectfully. But everyone who posts here has to self-regulate for the privilege.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-17T11:14:54-06:00