2008 Woodie Awards
Regarding ‘Representing the unrepresented’ (Monday, April 10, 2006):
I found the editorial board’s comments regarding the tone of the LGBT center naive at best. In the first place, where would the center find speakers able to “soften its image?” Furthermore, I believe it is just this sort of appeasing attitude, rather than any so-called militancy, that has marginalized the LGBT center until now. When the editorial board of the ‘Prince’ is concerned that the LGBT center is getting downright “uppity”, I know that they are doing something right. As for groups that have softened their message, I would think the recent role, or rather non-role, of OWL in campus is as an example of what road not to go down.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should be doing a better job keeping holiday shoppers safe- from each other.
I’ve read several reports of shoppers trampling each other today in the rush to take advantage of post-Thanksgiving savings at stores across the country. You can even watch videos of the rioting rampage at malls across the country. As one lady in Michigan who witnessed a rampage said, “This is ridiculous. I do not want my life in danger for this. We got babies getting hurt . . . this is not worth it . . . I don’t feel that I have to get beat up to get a sale.”
I have a lot of sympathy for the injured. But honestly, why does Drudge think this is news? Now, if he wanted to highlight Dubya’s relapse abroad . . . now that’s news!
I cringed seeing pictures of Bush’s locked door mishap plastered all over the front page of the New York Times today, and not because I don’t like seeing Dubya make himself look like an idiot. I’m just going to make a giant leap and suggest that there could be pressing world problems warranting media coverage more so than Bush’s logistical difficulties leaving an awkward press conference.
Fox News’ resident America-hating, pro-terrorist sympathizer (video).
I don’t usually agree on principle with Asheesh’s critiques of Prince editorials, but this is too much. Good thing we never write about ourselves here. (Wink)
Also, this is the perfect anti-dote for the latte-sipping elitist liberal intellectual.
“Isn’t it theoretically possible that there are good reasons for continuing the fight in Iraq, even if the intelligence that led us to war was flawed?”
Yes, it is theoretically possible. On this, I disagree with Asheesh’s assertion that it is sacriligeous for Jeremy to assert these claims. I believe that Jeremey is entirely wrong in saying that WMDs are not one of the main concerns, or even unimportant, in affecting current debate on Iraq. But I do not fault him for bringing up these points.
RE: Asheesh:
“we should by this point have invaded Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran, Burma, Laos, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia, at the very least.”
- Well, we have invaded North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Vietnam (at the least). And do you really want to force this sort of consistency?
“This is moral relativism at its worse.”
- I agree with this, and believe Asheesh’s argument should have been kept within these bounds.
But on the other hand, Jeremy’s own description of “contemptuous self-righteousness” may not have considered the real cause of this contempt.
As today’s letter in the Yale Daily News suggests, and I believe has been ignored in the debate on this blog, is that there is a huge difference between this exact behavior by Yale students and if this had been a speech outside of Yale.
It was less of a crusading, zealous and pointed protest than a within-the-system expression of disapproval. Hardly worthy of a Mother Jones mention.
Therefore, this “protest” - the actual accomplishments of which I question - is hardly a precedent for anything.
Robby, Asheesh and Howard have brought up some great points concerning the Condoleeza Rice speech protest.
I’d like to look at the protest in a different way, however - by defining success not as holding a moral high ground, or convincing the most Princeton students, but rather as attracting media attention.
Here is a sampling of articles on the protest:
BBC News World Edition: Rice warns against quitting Iraq
Voice of America: Rice Warns Against Abandoning Fight Against Iraqi Insurgency
Trenton Times: Anti-war protesters rally during Rice’s Princeton visit
North Jersey Herald: Rice warns Iraq pullout would raise terror threat
Hindustan Times: Rice defends military actions in Iraq
The Guardian: Rice: Iraq Must Not Be Given Up to Killers
Newspapers that weren’t local tended not to mention the protest. It is not the protestors’ fault - it is the way media works. Protests must be unusual to be covered in national media.
The media - even taken collectively - is not an objective gauge of events. Furthermore, news out of Princeton - if not done over the internet from livecast or television - tends to get written by Princeton students writing for the University Press Club - thus it is not even journalists (themselves part of the professional class) covering the protests. It is Princeton students, with all their biases.
With a view to the debate on this blog, then - the media, as usual, did not cover the protest in a way that might seem appropriate for ‘public’ reactions to a ‘public’ event. The disconnect between the sincerity and actions of the protestors and the media coverage they received is not only due to differences between conservative Princeton students and liberal protestors - it may be fated due to the nature of media coverage.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
