Defamation in the Internet Age

Having done some reading this week on the several fake quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh, it seriously concerns me that it seems so easy to damage someone's reputation. If you aren't familiar with the quotes or how they were evidently fabricated in order to brand Limbaugh a racist, you can find an analysis on About.com.
Personally, I don't really care all that much about Limbaugh himself, I find him to be way too obnoxious. What I do care about is the idea that someone with a little determination and a Wikipedia account could fabricate a quote which could eventually become accepted fact. If you think that Limbaugh's case is isolated, maybe you don't remember this famous hoax. While not as mean-spirited, the made-up quote by Shane Fitzgerald would likely have been attributed to Maurice Jarre permanently had Fitzgerald himself not intervened.
Here's how the fake-quote cycle happens:

1. An anonymous individual posts fake quote on Wikipedia.
2. Another individual picks up the quote for use in an article or book and doesn't mention Wikipedia as a source.
3. The quote, which has since been removed due to the lack of a documented source, reappears with the aforementioned article or book as its source. It is now legitimate.
   

Of course this will never happen again because all writers and reporters are thorough and ethical, right? The simple fact is that for every good writer, there is a lazy, incompetent one out there who will use shortcuts like Wikipedia.
Now, more than ever, you just can't believe what you hear.

Torture: Can It Be Justified?

A report being released details even more disturbing acts of torture against terror suspects. The report details how one detainee was threatened with a gun and a power drill, and another was made to believe that a prisoner in the next cell was being executed. It appears that these methods exceeded the already controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved by the Bush administration.
I believe that America is better than that. We stand for justice for our own people, and we should extend that even to our enemies abroad. Regardless of who these people are, if it is not something we would accept if it were an American citizen, then we should not accept it for any foreign national either.
In my opinion, America's greatest strength has always been it's ideals. We are a nation founded primarily by idealists, people who believed in an America so great that it was sometimes unrealistic. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson set the precedence of a two-term limit for the presidency, and for over 140 years this held on precedence alone. One could look at the personal lives of these men and see hypocrisy, and perhaps that is what it was, but I think that their ideals were so lofty that even they could not live up to them. Yet they still believed.
I do not hold any personal hatred towards the interrogators who perpetrated the torture, or towards the Bush administration who encouraged it in one way or another. I see that their goal was to save American lives. In their eyes, torturing a few dozen terrorists is justified if it possibly saves American lives.
I do not believe it is worth the cost of American lives if we lose what we stand for. Do not mistake my intent, I am not a pacifist and I firmly believe that war is a necessary evil. What I do not believe is that torture is in line with the ideals of America, and as such should not happen. If there is a price to pay for that stance, I will do my best to bear it.

(On a related note: How discouraging must it be for Eminem to have his music used as a torture device.)

Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New 'Chief Diversity Officer'

Usually when we hear the word "diversity" we think of racial diversity. In the case of the FCC, diversity also refers to a diversity of political views. With that in mind, they have appointed Mark Lloyd to the position of 'Chief Diversity Officer'. At first glance, this sounds like a good thing. The problem comes back to one issue, "Who decides what diversity looks like and how is it enforced?"
I took a little time to read "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" which addresses the preponderance of conservative programs. Mark Lloyd is among the seven authors of this report, which clearly takes issue with superior airtime that conservative commentators receive. The report gives three suggested "policy solutions" to even out the imbalance.

• Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations
• Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing
• Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting

The first point is not a huge problem for me. the rise of huge conglomerate radio stations has made it difficult for smaller, local stations to compete. Reasonable caps would allow more local radio stations to hopefully find a place in the market.
The problem with trying to enforce local accountability is in the question of what will be enforced. If for some reason the FCC hears more complaints about liberal commentators, will they ignore those in favor of the minority complaints about conservatives? The fact that the goal of this point is to increase progressive political talk radio shows that there are some predetermined objectives here. Under this point the report states that radio stations must "regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest". Again the question comes back to "Who decides what is the 'public interest'?" Not to sound overly paranoid, but all of it takes on faint overtones of 'Big Brother'.
The final point indicates that any radio station only airing one viewpoint will be fined up to $250 million, which will then be given to National Public Radio. The wording seems to include radio stations airing only liberal viewpoints as well as those airing only conservative views, but the implication of the report itself is that specifically conservative radio stations will be targeted.
Aside from the issues raised by the report itself I was a bit surprised to see Dr. Laura on the list of 'Conservative' hosts (Appendix B). While I would agree she is probably identifiable as conservative, the primary purpose of her show is not politics . This indicates that any show that discusses politics, even if the primary focus of the show is not politics, is still considered 'political talk radio'.
I also noted that the report does not take into account the numerous talk shows that can be found on what are mostly music stations. Shows such as Howard Stern, and Love Line with Dr. Drew are certainly shows that could be easily placed in the 'Progressive' category, but were not even considered.
The combination of including conservative shows that are not primarily political while excluding more liberal ones in the same category pads the results. I do not doubt that political talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives, but in viewing how the report arrived at it's conclusions you can see that it is certainly not entirely representative.
The biggest problem I have with trying to force radio stations to air opposing viewpoints is that you can find an opposing viewpoint to almost any issue. For example, most of us generally agree that race relations should be improved through understanding, there is a minority that proposes a return to segregation. Who decides if that view deserves equal air time alongside the those who encourage reconciliation? That is an extreme example, but the question remains, who decides what views are valid and which are not? The whole issue is entirely too subjective for anyone to accurately judge.

Sarah Palin and the 'death panel' comment.

Let me get one thing straight before I say anything else. I do not agree with Sarah Palin's assertion that the health care bill sets up a 'death panel' that determines whether an elderly or disabled person receives care. I do not believe that this is something that President Obama or any member of congress that I am familiar with would condone.
What I would like to point out is that Sarah Palin, as a mother of a developmentally disabled child, may have personal reasons for fearing such a policy. My own experience as an administrator for developmentally disabled persons living in groups homes has shown me that the health care industry is not always kind to the disabled. This is something that someone who cares directly for the developmentally disabled would know very well.
I have spent countless hours speaking with nurses and administrators to ensure only the most basic care for my clients. While a "Do Not Resuscitate" (or DNR) order is sometimes appropriate with the severely handicapped, it was rare that I did not get a series of questions about a client's status.
Two cases that occurred during my time as an administrator were particularly troubling. On one occasion a staff member at the hospital told a fellow administrator that they required a resuscitate order. This trained staff member had the gall to suggest that these health care professionals needed a doctor's order to do the job that they are supposed to do anyway. I guarentee that no such order was ever asked of a non-disabled person. Even more horrifying was the case in which a client without a DNR order, and in which the case manager had specifically stated that there was not a DNR for the client, suddenly had a DNR order signed by the attending physician appear in his chart. The client coded during the night and was allowed to die.
In my time as an administrator I met many nurses and physicians who treated my clients with all the respect and dignity they deserved, but I also met many who treated them as if they were less deserving of medical care than the non-disabled. In networking with other care providers for the disabled I have learned that this is common. It was personally difficult to see my clients, many of whom I consider friends, being disrespected when it came to their most basic needs. I would not at all be surprised if Sarah Palin has experienced this herself while caring for her child. This breeds a suspicion against all in the health care field, since it is difficult to know who to trust.
Again, I would like to make clear that I neither agree with Sarah Palin's comment, nor condone it. What I am saying is that I understand that there may be personal reasons why she expressed suspicion about the bill. Might this have been yet another politically-minded attack? Of course. But it might also sprung from a mother's most basic drive in trying to protect her child.

Rewriting History to Support an Argument

A fellow blogger at DownWithTyranny! has taken it upon himself to create a revisionist history of conservatism in America in a post titled: "Where Does It End?-- Confusing Dissent With Violence". I am certainly not one to say that conservative agendas are always correct (probably not any more often than liberal ones).

"If it can’t win the hearts and minds of the majority, it has always sought extra-legal means to arrive at the simple, easy to understand “order” that they strive for. Unable to persuade through logic and the exchange of ideas in civil discourse, the right wing mindset is given to the violent tantrums of an unsophisticated child."

Why do I take issue with this statement? There is truth in what is said here, if you break down what is being said. However, you can also find plenty of instances of liberals who acted much the same in similar circumstances. Perhaps this is a statement that applies to people as a whole, and not just conservatives.

Let me flash back a few years to when conservatives had control of the presidency and congress. This is a video of conservatives peacefully protesting an anti-war rally and being met with violence. (Caution: offensive language)

My point? Not that one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides have members who ignore our basic right of freedom of speech when it is something they disagree with. Both sides should reject any member who feels that it is ok to trample another person's right to respectfully disagree.

He goes further to state:

"If there has been a political assassination to be had in our history, it has been done to carry out some twisted righty agenda."

A generalization that is patently false. Take, for example, Sirhan Sirhan (assassinated Robert Kennedy), or Leon Czolgosz (assassinated President McKinley), who were certainly not members of any right-wing agenda. It is completely unsubstantiated accusations like this that truly concern me about the state of politics today.

It is certainly worth noting that the author appears to take great pleasure in lumping the present day conservatives in with any historical right-wing party. In effect, he is saying that there is lumping current conservatives in with historical racists, segregationists and slave-owners. The problem is that even the terms conservative and liberal, or right and left are generic terms that can mean almost anything depending on context. Also, while a person may hold to certain right-wing ideas, they may also adhere to left-wing ideas at the same time. The average modern conservative likely has more in common with the liberals of a century ago. Labels are great when someone wants to make divisions sound simple and well-defined, but they are rarely as clear as they might initially seem.

To give him credit, this blogger probably thinks he is making some point that will improve matters in this country. He even made some good points in his blog regarding health care. The problem is that he also made false generalizations that will only offend, which can only lead to further polarization. If he really wants to change minds rather than polarize this country further, he needs to phrase things in a way that will be heard.

Clinton's trip to North Korea

This is my third blog today, but I feel the need to throw my two cents in on former President Clinton's trip to North Korea. I have heard a lot of speculation on the purpose of his visit and what, if any, concessions were given.
I've heard some of the pundits on the conservative side speak suspiciously of Clinton's visit. I heard Glenn Beck suggest that there had to be something in it for Clinton. For the record, I will openly admit that I am not what most would consider a "Clinton supporter", but I have always recognized his diplomatic abilities. It was one of his strengths as a president and certainly couldn't hurt in deescalating the rising tensions with North Korea.
Personally, I distrust Kim Jong-il's regime as much as most, and his presumably growing stockpile of nuclear weapons is close to terrifying. What little I know of North Korea's dictator leads me to believe that he aspires to be a major player on the world stage. It seems a small thing to me to humor him for the sake of keeping peace. Perhaps if he has his coveted place in the imaginary spotlight, he will ease back on his nuclear ambitions. If not, we can always go back to the hard-line even though it hasn't really worked so far.

"Why would anyone think that?"

As I see it, one of the biggest problems in today's politics is that pundits and politicians alike tend to view their opponents as "evil" or "crazy". I put these terms in quotes because although they would never actually use these words, the meaning is there. Instead of treating opposing ideas as real concerns or honest beliefs by intelligent people, pundits often dismiss opponents without ever really examining their motivations.
Here is a recent example of that kind of thinking: "Democrats say Republicans staging town hall protests". In this case the Democrats quickly dismiss people's concerns and fears as merely "staged" by the villainous Republicans who only wish to hurt President Obama. Rather than acknowledge people's fears about health care, they have made it into a matter of spite, which is easy to ignore. This is merely one example, I could find just as many on the Republican side of things as well.
It is the same thinking that makes it easy to vilify individuals. Conservatives might assume that Clinton is a libidinous, immoral maniac without any motivation beyond himself. The more liberal might likewise assume that Bush is a power-hungry, lying imbecile who's only goal is to dominate America. I personally believe the motivations of each of these men is far more complex than any of us can understand, and have a few ideas on why I think they did what they did. By reducing these men to simplified caricatures, we can easily label and dismiss any action they make, even those we might otherwise agree with.
Does this mean that any opposing view is equally correct as yours? Not necessarily. For example, if I said it was 95 degrees out and you said it was 35, there are two possibilites: Either we are using differing measures (Farenheit and Celsius) or one of us is wrong. You should take a moment to examine their opinion to see if you need to make a change in yours.
The real issue is not that we all agree, because that will never happen and I don't think it should. What I would like to see is people able to hold their own opinions and beliefs and yet understand that another rational, intelligent person may have a differing opinion. If we can seek understanding with those people first, we may actually have a chance at convincing them. Without understanding why someone believes the way they do, you have no chance at actually engaging them in dialogue about their beliefs. It takes a lot of work to understand another person, but I think that's the way it should be.

The Purpose of "Ignored in the Middle"

The pundits love extremes. Whether the far left or the far right, these are the views that get attention. The middle (where the majority of voter are) is generally ignored. My hope is that the moderate majority will be able to find a voice in politics, and that in some small way I might be able to help.
How do I define a moderate? This is an important question, since a moderate may take views from any range between the extremes. The simple truth is that what is moderate to one person may be extreme to another, or even the most moderate of moderates may hold an extreme view on one subject. In my opinion, most moderates (regardless of views) are tired of partisan politics and just want to find some middle ground.
I have no delusions of grandeur. I know that in all likelihood this blog will be ignored by the vast majority, but maybe a few will find me and make their own voices heard as well. The simple truth is that we will continue to be ignored as long as we stay silent.