I just read part of a column by Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist. He was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species, and said something to this effect: “Frogs are a species; a given variety of frog is not a species.” I just had to scream! Frogs are–off top my head–more like a sub-order! That is, “Frogs” refers to a group of species similar to each other but as distinct from each other as, for example:
a. the set of non-lemur primates: great apes, lesser apes, monkeys, and mankind (really a great ape with pretensions)
b. cloven-hooved animals: antelope, goats, buffalo, deer… would you consider all those a “species”, too, Mr Sowell??
People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn’t set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn’t be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. “Freedom of the press” is no excuse for damned lies!
Exactly who are you suggesting “ban” the guy from the newspapers? The government? Nice to know you support the Constitution and all that. :rolleyes:
Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read “part of?” I’d like to read the actual words, rather than your version of “something to this effect.”
As Sowell has so effectively shown, the rule in Washington is:
“Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite.”
Its gotten almost depressing to see any news coverage about public policy issues that touches on scientific issues. The general level of scientific understanding in the USA is abysmal, and political hacks are among the worst offenders. For most of them their last contact with any scientific training was a Bio 110 class taken in their freshman year as a requirement.
Uh, foolsguinea did not say that the government should ban the guy, he just said that newspapers shouldn’t print this nonsense. As I understand it, fools was complaining about the right-wing nut jobs who insist that their “Constitustional rights” are being violated when privately-owned publications decide not to publish their lies (remember David Horowitz). The frist amendment doesn’t require private publications to support freedom of anything.
Although I generally disagree with Sowell, up to now I considered him intellectually a cut above Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy other such professional fudge-pipes.
Get a load of this, from Sowell’s article:
Let me get this straight: when environmentalists oppose development, they’re “adjudicating”, but when some idiot builds an airport on top of the only remaining habitat of a species, it’s…what? The natural order of things? Seems like knowingly wiping out a species (which is what Sowell defends) implies a hell of a lot more “God-like” judgment than opposing development.
As a MEMBER of the media, even if not national, I feel compelled to respond to this thread. No, private publications are not “required” to support freedom of anything. But it IS in our best interests to allow a variety of views to be freely expressed, even those of “right-wing nut jobs.” Otherwise, what is our freedom worth? Groups like the Sierra Club are considered LEFT-wing “nut jobs” in some parts of the state in which I live. Should they therefore be barred from the pages of the publication I work for? I think not.
The right to freely speak or be published is not subject to a popular vote, no matter how much some people on both sides of the cultural divide may wish it were. Suffice it to say there are extremists on both the Right and the Left who publish lies. It would be nice if this were not so, but we don’t live in that perfect world.
I, for one, support the right of Mr. Sowell to say what he pleases, and the right of the Sierra Club to say what IT pleases, even though I agree with neither of them. I support that right because it is the same right that allows me, and all of you, incidentally, to post whatever we want to say to this Board. Make it more difficult for an unpopular view to be heard, and you have just driven the first nail into the coffin of your own freedom.
now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a ‘thanks for the link’ and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it’s been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?
I don’t believe that Mr. Sowell is an official ‘GOP propagandist’, but I am grateful for this article and quote, since he’s been cited as ‘evidence’ of certain positions in GD lately. He’s an economist by trade -IIRC- but as a columnist offers up his opinion on everything from environmental issues to education. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion of course, and I agree that the press has an obligation to provide some space to both ends (the point about the Sierra Club is a good one).
I think the next time I see him linked as ‘support’ for a position, I’ll just link this thread.
Lizard - censoring someone’s point of view is obviously undesirable. On the other hand, disseminating the writings of a person who discusses an issue while demonstrating in his prose an obvious lack of knowledge of the facts behind the issue does not serve freedom of the press as much as help foster contempt for the media. I personally look to my news outlets to provide me, on the editorial page, with intelligent commentary and thought-provoking viewpoints, not mindless vituperation (notice the title of the article) based on ignorance.
obviously you never read the ‘letters to the editor’ section, eh? (acknowledged to be different from columnists) From my perspective, Mr. Sowell is a columnist with opinions. He’s entitled to those opinions, and has managed to get himself a gig where he’s convinced some folks to pay for the right to publish said opinions (nice job if you can get it).
What the publishers should do is print above each column in his case “Mr. Sowell has degrees as an economist” or something like that, (and yes, same for all the liberal ones, too). So, for example, in addition to Dr. Laura’s column on moral rightness, we’d see that her Doctorate was in (what the hell was it again? phys ed? - seriously, I don’t remember), which would allow us to judge for ourselves how large a grain of salt to use (in Mr. Sowells’ case, I think there’s one large enough under the city of Detroit )
wring, it’s also the responsibility of the editors of a media outlet to refuse to publish columns that add nothing of value, and to stop employing columnists whose opinions are based on incorrect facts. Even if they have degrees from a prestigious school.
Eh. I don’t even think they should do that. But when a columnist gets a material fact wrong, publishers should treat it the same as if a reporter had done it.
I think each and every media outlet that carries his column should print a correction making it clear that there are, in fact, distinct species of what we call “frogs.”
Too many columnists on both (all) sides get factually lazy once they realize that editors cut them more slack than the reporters. It hurts journalism.
Manny, Arnold point well taken, if there is (as in this case) a material and factual falsehood. where I see the damage that these sorts (both sides, really) do, though is not in the area of factual thing like this, but in an area where they’ll reinterpret data outside their field of expertise and offer up their ‘opinion’. For example, my field is criminal justice. I often see pundits comment on data from that field, and since they don’t understand the source data their conclusions are suspect. (not that I’m incapable of being wrong, mind you, but at least, dammit, I know where the data comes from and how it’s accumulated).
and, here we had Mr. Sowell, an economist, offering up his opinion on biological/environmental data. Or in another thread, his book on the educational system in the US. He’s entitled to his opinion, he may even have some understanding of the issues, but he certainly shouldn’t be seen as an ‘expert’ opinion in those areas, so merely reporting a ‘factual’ wrong isn’t sufficient in my book.
I have to disagree on this. He’s not claiming to be an expert. He’s a “pundit” (or whatever you want to call it) and they all have opinions on a wide variety of issues. As long as he, or George Will or Molly Ivins or whoever, don’t claim in their piece to be an expert I don’t see the need for listing their academic field. These columns are clearly opinion and are not news sources. The nature of opinion columnists is known widely enough that I don’t believe many people assume the writer has academic expertise in the area.
The legitimacy of a columnists opinions depend on how cogent there argument is, not their degree.
