Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Maybe McBride is a martyr?

A few final comments.

1. Jay Bullock does not want to make her a martyr. But folks on the left who are celebrating her dismissal because of the Kane bit are doing just that. As I blogged on Saturday, I thought that the bit was unfunny and a tad overnasty - not to Jasmine Owens and her family - but to Kane. Rather than simply cry outrage or circle the wagons, I tried to explain what was and what was not wrong with it. It did not "mock" the death of Jasmine Owens. It did not express indifference about her death (quite the opposite). Although, in this context, it was a bit unfair to Kane, she was trying to make a deadly serious point about the muted response to urban violence by those who could make a big difference but do not. Although I have tried to make the same point, it's not the way I would do it. But, as I said, I am not sure that my approach to things would win a very large radio audience.

But there was no way it was a firing offense. We all flub occasionally and I am sure that journalism instructor McBride could find some examples in the annals of this blog.

I am perfectly willing to believe that TMJ let her go for lack of ratings. It is a pretty much impossible situation, going on the air whenever the Brewers and Bucks are off or done. Under those circumstances, I think its tough to build a following.

By trying to claim her scalp or justify her dismissal as a response to what she said, however, a martyr is exactly what she will become and, as critical as I was of her, that status will be justified and necessary.

I am sure that I could listen to Joel McNally's show on MCS for about 45 minutes and find something just as nasty (I know it would not be funny.) Do I think MCS should fire him if I do? Absolutely not.

If I spent some time I do not have this morning and read around the left side of the local political blogs, I could find numerous examples just as nasty (although some would be funny.) Has a liberal blogger ever accused conservatives of not caring about poor black people or of reveling in or encouraging "hate crimes"? Ever used the death of a soldiers in Iraq in conjunction with Bush's war policy to suggest that Bush was indifferent to that death? Ever called anyone a chicken? Or any other rotten name?

There is conceit on the left that they are somehow "nicer" and more "civil" than those on the right. That's blind. It's not true.

So an overweening concern for propriety is going to chop off heads on both sides of the fence. Think about that. You'd be left with Jim Rowen and I discussing the nuances of the judicial review or the Great Lakes water shed. Grog on that for awhile.

2. I actually hate to see her go. I didn't often have a chance to listen, but I enjoyed keeping an ear on the show when I was working at that time and she was on. I am a Dennis Miller fan, but I prefer my radio to be local and she was the only one on the dial at that time. I thought she had grown into the job.

3. I don't know what Jessica McBride plans to do but my (undrgrad) alma mater could use a John McAdams. That may be hard to do without tenure, but she might want to think on that.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Regardless of one's politics or philosophy -- McBride was simply an untalented hack. Sarcastic rhetorical questions and undifferentiated outrage used to mock and belittle provide for content that is dull and dim-witted for all.

There are some thoughtful conversative types; McBride offered nothing by playground style gibber. And, now she's gone. Buh bye.

James Rowen said...

And Great Lakes water needs your attention.

Refer people to my blog:
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/ for good and reliable information.

Thanks.

Lew Wasserman said...

My experience with the left is that their thralldom to their ideology permits, perhaps compells, dispensing with being nice or civil, so we have to witness "violent anti-war protests" and Rosie shoutdowns, etc etc. So I agree that the conceit that they are nice and civil is a delusion.

Anonymous said...

Lew, your post borders on unintelligible. Please explain what you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

My experience with the right is that their thralldom to their ideology permits, perhaps compels, dispensing with being nice or civil, so we have to witness "senseless, evil rhetoric" by Rush, O'Reilly, Sykes, et al. So I agree that the conceit that they are always nice, civil or right is quite the delusion. Goes both ways Lew.

Anonymous said...

I don't seem to make the same connection that the individual above me wrote. True, Limbaugh is a blowhard and too self-assured to consider viewpoints divergent to his own as carrying any water. However, the only conceivable individual who could call Sykes "bigoted" or a purveyor of "evil rhetoric" is likely someone who finds Michael McGee to be an influential, if not compelling, figure in local politics. If intelligently articulating a viewpoint is considered evil rhetoric, and if pursuing an agenda that questions hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle--and Sykes does just that--is considered bigoted, then what remains of political discourse? Sykes, McBride, and James T. Harris point out societal ills and chastise those elected officials who perpetuate such problems via ignorance, indifference, or ineptitude. That is responsible journalism; a far cry from much of our local liberal media who thrive on illuminating small or fallacious victories for the left and anything resembling a mistake on the right.

As for McBride specifically, while I found her radio show to be boring, her writing is always a good read. To call her a political hack is quite the overstatement.

Anonymous said...

"...a far cry from much of our local liberal media who thrive on illuminating small or fallacious victories for the left and anything resembling a mistake on the right."

Man-oh-man this is great reading! What is it about some of you wingnuts that you can't see that you play the Mr. Pot to the left's Mr. Kettle?

What about the right wing nuts who "thrive on illuminating small or fallacious victories for the right and anything resembling a mistake on the left"?

Anonymous said...

"What about the right wing nuts who "thrive on illuminating small or fallacious victories for the right and anything resembling a mistake on the left"?"

I'd be interested to learn of a mainstream media outlet aside from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal that panders to the right wing base like CNN, MSNBC, MJS, NYT, Wash. Post, or any of the other innumerable modes of popular media cater to the left. Equating talk radio, which is necessarily biased, with mainstream news outlets, which are allegedly unbiased, is fundamentally unsound.

Anonymous said...

"Equating talk radio, which is necessarily biased, with mainstream news outlets, which are allegedly unbiased, is fundamentally unsound."

This last post illustrates one of the great hypocrisies of the wingnuts:

1. The mainstream media is all unfairly biased toward the left.

2. We need right wing media to provide "balance" but...

3. .. the right wing media has absolutely no responsibility to be unbiased!

This enables Sykes, Belling, McThird Bride, Hannity, the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "Loofah Bill" O'Reilly and scores of others to blather on willy-nilly without any semblance of balance.

Anonymous said...

It's a lot easier to refer to people who disagree with your point of view as "wingnuts." It seems like a common tactic of the left these days; anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily misinformed or plain stupid. Playground insults, the variety of which others in this section have criticized McBride for using, are the tactics of someone who is simply unable to refute an argument with tact or, in some cases, sound logic.

While it is true that they don't have a responsibility to be unbiased, they are generally not places people go for news. People refer to newspapers and TV media for what they perceive to be an unbiased account of that day's events. Unfortunately, most of the time this is significantly slanted left, thus skewing what the otherwise uninformed person views as objective fact. Talk radio is unabashedly partisan and is not a news show. Hosts do not mask the fact that they are conservative or liberal or whatever by attempting to pass off their program as an account of an event as reported by a neutral third party. This is the fundamental difference; the only comparable item of any mainstream media is an editorial section, in which the reader/ viewer is put on notice that the opinions expressed are just that.

Anonymous said...

"It seems like a common tactic of the left these days; anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily misinformed or plain stupid. Playground insults, the variety of which others in this section have criticized McBride for using, are the tactics of someone who is simply unable to refute an argument with tact or, in some cases, sound logic."

Pardon me for aping the lingo used by Martyr Jessica almost exclusively. I guess that this is your way of conceding that her show sucked. Thanks for the validation.

vuong said...

施術用ベッド
大和市 買取
チューバ
ランドローバー
通販 システム
霊園
出張ネイル 東京
グリシン
臨床心理士
品川区 土地
ボイトレ 方法
漢方薬局
サングラス
ニキビ 治療
看護師求人
着付け教室 大阪
顔 たるみ
カラーコンタクト
タレント ブログ
インプラント 大田区
所沢市 不動産
かつら 価格
カイロプラクティック 中央区
不動産管理
賃貸管理