Oprah & Rush Limbaugh should not be held to any minimum standards re the accuracy of their views

[Acsenray]

I am talking about the point of free speech as a public good. The purpose of free discourse is to encourage the marketplace of ideas and let good speech drive out bad.

Free speech as a personal, individual right is a separate issue and nothing I have said limits that.

[Maeglin]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

So what you’re saying is “Yes, I believe Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, believes there are no homosexuals in Iran.” Columbia did not have a point-counterpoint session (not even Lee Bollinger reading a disclaimer that repudiated the remarks and stated they were without scientific support, like Oprah did! Uh oh!!), there were no knowledgeable experts on hand to contradict what he said, it was just Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet nobody thinks that these beliefs are those of Columbia University’s.

Did you watch the same Ahmadinejad interview as the rest of the world?

Lee Bollinger was subject to considerable criticism for some of the harsh words he had for Ahmadinejad.

Among his other remarkes, Bollinger said:

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And further:

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

Spare us, Kimmy. Oprah doesn’t have stones like Lee Bollinger does. This is rather more honest than Oprah’s “well, there may be no science to support this, but hey, you never know”.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Maeglin

Did you watch the same Ahmadinejad interview as the rest of the world?

Lee Bollinger was subject to considerable criticism for some of the harsh words he had for Ahmadinejad.

Among his other remarkes, Bollinger said:

And further:

Spare us, Kimmy. Oprah doesn’t have stones like Lee Bollinger does. This is rather more honest than Oprah’s “well, there may be no science to support this, but hey, you never know”.

How did someone upthread respond to the fact that OW read a CDC disclaimer on the much-maligned Jenny McCarthy antivax episode? Something about “throwaway remarks that bookend a lengthy and unchallenged holding forth…”

That rejoinder is incorporated by reference.

[Gary_T]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

How did someone upthread respond to the fact that OW read a CDC disclaimer on the much-maligned Jenny McCarthy antivax episode? Something about “throwaway remarks that bookend a lengthy and unchallenged holding forth…”

That rejoinder is incorporated by reference.

And you don’t see a difference between a half-hearted fleeting perfunctory disclaimer (in the midst of obvious support) and an impassioned and harsh critique? Nor between voicing political opinions and propagating medical advice which can be factually refuted? Come on.

[Balthisar]

@acsenray

I am talking about the point of free speech as a public good. The purpose of free discourse is to encourage the marketplace of ideas and let good speech drive out bad.

Free speech as a personal, individual right is a separate issue and nothing I have said limits that.

Okay, I understand your point as clarified now.

[Philster]

Unfortunately, smart people make lousy entertainers, but that’s because of their audience is the judge of what good entertainment is.

What rag magazine sell the best? Which shows get the best ratings? People want stupid stuff.

[Maeglin]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

How did someone upthread respond to the fact that OW read a CDC disclaimer on the much-maligned Jenny McCarthy antivax episode? Something about “throwaway remarks that bookend a lengthy and unchallenged holding forth…”

That rejoinder is incorporated by reference.

That rejoinder is somewhat lacking. Your assessment of Lee Bollinger’s remarks as “throwaway” and unchallenging are unconventional. You may read them in their entirety here. Warning: they are both very lengthy and very polemical.

Perhaps the distinction is best clarified between Oprah’s mealy-mouthed disclaimer and Bollinger’s pointed critique. Oprah was half-heartedly presenting not her own opinion but that of the CDC, whose authority in such matters Jenny McCarthy has already gone to great lengths on the program to undermine. In no way did Oprah hold herself accountable to this view.

Bollinger, on the other hand, takes the opposite position. Below are his final closing remarks.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

The distinction between these two positions could not be clearer.

[Telcontar]

So, the original question was not “what should be done” or “are they wrong” but instead “should we blame them if we think they are wrong.” I think the answer is a clear “yes.”

It all comes down to power. They have substantial influence over the lives of a great many people. These people are crazy, but that’s not overly relevant here. By virtue of having great power, they have an implicit social responsibility to not misuse it.

@Crotalus

The issue for me with Oprah and Rush (or their apologists) using the “I’m just an entertainer” disclaimer is this: they both encourage their listeners to take action. Rush doesn’t just say that he thinks this or that. He tells the dittoheads what they ought to do, who they ought to vote for. He is consulted by members of congress…[snip]… I just think that they do in fact bear personal responsibility for the harm they cause. Not legal responsibility; personal, moral responsibility.

@astro

Re Oprah and the anti-vax issue you do not appear to be understanding in any way, shape or form the point of contention. Oprah’s views re the legitimacy of the anti-vax movement are quite clearly reflected in her actions which have been to give the anti-vax proponents unparalleled, uncritical access, multiple times to a hugely influential media portal, and tacitly personally bless these views by not allowing knowledgeable critics and medical experts the opportunity to take them on head to head.

(bolding mine)

If I publicly advocate an action, I am somewhat responsible for the consequences. If I give a megaphone to someone, I have some responsibility for what they say. Not ultimate or total responsibility in either case, but some. This responsibility can be mitigated easily enough, rebuttals, clear qualifiers, etc, but the basic connection is there.

Jon Stewart also has power, but 1.) he tries to be fairly neutral (guests from many perspectives) and 2.) he is quite clear that he shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Remember his exchange with Cramer? Stewart had been criticized because he was fundamentally an entertainer, it wasn’t like he could have given better investment advice. Stewart said, effectively, “you’re right! But I’m not the one running an investment news channel. I’m supposed to be funny and ridiculous.”