I’m sure he’s not kidding, and I’m also sure that his opinion is worthless
Excellent point. I trust this means that you also disapprove of left-wing students who boo conservative speakers?
Jesus, people. Pariahs; “…we become pariahs…,” not “piranhas.”
:: shaking head ::
Not to be overly nitpicky, but isn’t unplugging someone’s microphone in response to the opinions expressed in his speech the dictionary definition of censorship? I dislike graduation speakers talking about politics, rather than climbing every mountain and gazing over vistas, but I also think it’s wrong to censor them, unless you agreed with them in advance exactly what they would and would not say.
I agree. However, I also think it’s less than admirable to use a graduation speaking engagement as a bully pulpit for one’s own political beliefs.
I consider the speaker’s transgression to be on a par with the best man at a wedding reception, using his traditional toast to the happy couple as a way to remember the night of wild monkey sex he had with the bride last month.
Some people have a difficult time balancing the concept of “freedom of speech” with the concept of “tact.” This event was not held to celebrate the views of a New York Times reporter; it was held to celebrate the matriculation of a number of students. Making oneself the focus of the event is wrong; the focus should be on the students.
I had a columnist/pundit type speak at my college graduation, and I can’t remember a thing he said.
These grads will have a nifty memory for always.
He said nothing that could be construed as this in content or in connotation, of course. (I suspect that such a characterization came from O’Reilly’s show, so I am not deliberately picking a fight with the OP.)
I suspect that his speech (even though I clearly disagree with many points) would have gone over fine at a different campus. It was not nearly as over-the-top as I’m sure O’Reilly made it appear. So, as noted above, who agreed to invite him? And, of course, the presence and repeated use of foghorns to drown him out and the move from the audience to cut him off when he had barely gotten into the speech indicates that there was concerted opposition to his speaking even before he arrived. So, again, why was he picked to speak at that college? Was he really trying to be provocative? Or did he stumble into a situation for which he was unprepared?
As to the “political” nature of his remarks: those are a time-honored tradition in several schools. Such would not be my choice at a commencement, but there are places where it is nearly expected. (Would the crowd have been just as displeased had he led a cheer-leading rally for Dubya?)
Given the venue, I would say that his speech was a mistake. But I am curious as to how that speaker got lined up with that venue to begin with.
Well, he said:
which mainly could be construed that way if you were being mean.
Bleh, I shouldn’t have said this, Diogenes, I apologize. :o
I didn’t know it was traditional. Most commencement cermories I have seen involve a bunch of pointless improving yourself platitudes, and responsibility to the future cliches. Not very instructive or usefull, but the focus should be on the graduators, not the other people. I don’t see it as censorship personally. I see the students as the purpose of the graduation, and therefore have the only say it what goes on. If the majority of students disagreed with the speech(which is hard to figure out from the article), then it should have been cut off. It’s their party.
Personally I figure he is a true ivory tower liberal who has no clue about the real world, or more likely he knew exactly what he was doing, that it would piss people off, and he built the cross ahead of time for his poor-censored-me routine.
My own graduation speaker was Neal Shine who was publisher of the Detroit free press in the middle of an ugly strike.
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1996/jan/01-10-96/news/protest.html
Even though there were lots of protestors and arrests and heckling, He was a total class act focusing on the honorary degree crap, and our accomplishemts. He had the class not to turn it into a day about his beliefs and positions, even though he was under assault. But, I think it’s pretty damn clear to most people how not to be an ass as a commencment speaker.
I dunno, the higher the profile of the speaker, the higher the potential for the grandstanding. IT certainly isn’t unheard of anyhow (see above comments re: recent Bush speech). yea, they make comments about ‘the wave of the future’ etc., but really how many ways can you say “you have your life before you don’t fuck up”?
Basically, I still fault whoever booked the gig, to insure that the comments were of the bland variety vs. his beliefs/book, what have you.
seriously, if you’d booked Keanu Reeves to speak at your graduation, you’d act surprised if he managed to talk about The Matrix mostly?
Correct. I think that booing, blowing horns, etc. is obnoxious and stupid no matter who does it.
FWIW, I don’t think it was especially appropriate to give a political speech at a graduation, but shouting people down always turns me off as well.
No problem. I’ve had my share of posts that I wished I could take back as well.
A graduation speech? Explain how you discipline someone who’s successfully completed the requirements for a degree.
You know, if I’d known there was a chance of something like this happening when I graduated college, I might have actually attended the ceremony. If I have to dress like a ninny and stand in the hot sun for hours, I’d at least want someone I could take my frustrated boredom out on.
I had Ashcroft as my graduation speaker last year. I’m not sure what he talked about because I dozed off about five minutes into it, though (late night at the Times for a bit of pre-grad boozing). On the plus side, the speech was broadcast on C-SPAN and during a crowd pan they got a nice close-up of my ugly mug with my eyes close, mouth agape, chin on chest snoring peacefully. Good times.
Neurotik, that is how I want to remember you. Tell me, did any of the naked female statues have to suddenly have bra’s?
Hahaha, we didn’t have any naked female statues. Mostly fully clothed male saints.
Attempted censorship, perhaps. He did finish his screed. I’m not condoning unplugging his mike, but I agree with wolfman’s idea that he probably “knew exactly what he was doing, that it would piss people off, and he built the cross ahead of time for his poor-censored-me routine.” It was a no-lose situation for Hedges. He either got to cram his ideology down an unwilling audience’s throats, or he gets to cry censorship. Add to this the fact that he was out promoting his new anti-war book. A little controversy never hurt sales, so I suspect he upped the vitriol a notch just to provoke this sort of response.
Everyone I’ve seen taking this sort of stance are the ones who embrace and advocate biased reporting. The NYTimes, I believe, also put a pro-choice activist in charge of its abortion coverage. The woman was out marching in rallies, etc., and then claiming enough distance to cover the events! And when people point out obvious signs of bias in the coverage, the papers say people are “bashing the media.” Other papers have put self-professed feminists in charge of covering gender issues and wondered why they had to run retractions that wife-beating didn’t go up on Super Bowl Sunday, that there was no “anorexia holocaust” and that their rape statistics were wildly inflated.
FTR, Chris Hedges is not just a war correspondent. He is a self-described anti-war activist. And he’s currently out peddling his latest anti-war book. There’s a lot more at work here than just having an opinion.
Also, there is such a thing as corporate culture. Everyone might have an opinion, but if it’s not the boss’s opinion, how far do you get by expressing it? Or am I just missing the abundance of moderates at the top of the NYTimes?
Well, if we want to talk censorship, here’s a good place to start.
I know you’ve said this was hyperbole. Still, this is pretty scary thinking – that one side has the “truth” and the other side commits an offense by objecting to it. In another place and time, this attitude gives us “re-education camps.”
Seems to me that the people who booed were also engaging in free expression. If expressing opinions contrary to yours moves you to this reaction, even in supposed jest, let’s examine who’s being authoritarian here.
I also hear that the Dixie Chicks got booed at the Country Music Awards. That’s entirely fine with me.
“Why not? Everyone in the newsroom has an opinion, and all of them are free to share their opinion with others. There is no reason to suspect that he is unable to objectively report the news simply because he happens to have an opinion on the war.”
I must react to this as well. I worked as a TV news producer for five years. Tens of thousands of people got what news I thought was important and in the order and quantity I wanted them to get it. If I wanted to slant the newscast to my own political view, I had ample opportunity. I did not do it for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s just not right. Second, anyone with a knowledge base of current events that is equal to or superior to my own would see the bias immediately. And remember, this was TV. Small segments and no way to put words in someones mouth or twist them. (For the TV savvy among us, yes, you can cover an audio edit with a cutaway but you can’t change the basic message of the bite.)
Newspaper reporters are under no such constraints. They can leave words out of quotes to change their meaning, paraphrase for convienience, emphasize what’s favorable to their ideology, marginalize what’s not and in some cases, simply make things up.
I have done some newspaper writing. The story is what the reporter says it is. The analysis, the spin, the general tone of the story is all under one persons control. That point made…how can you trust someone so publically and vehemently anti-war to cover a conflict and have any credibility? If he’s willing to anger hundreds of people on one of the most special days of thier lives, he’s willing to slant a few details.