Review - Godless: The Church of Liberalism

In the past four years of my life, I have developed a significant animosity towards popular conservative commentator Ann Coulter. The mere sight of that blonde shock jock sent my eyes into a world of pain, similar to envisioning the apocalypse… children all hooting and hollering, fighting for survival… streets full of blinding conflagration, skies constantly filled with deafening thunder, retirement facilities and adoption centers just going up in flames right before your very eyes… don’t forget about the Animal Shelter for Lost Beagle Puppies with Big Ol’ Ears and Even Bigger Eyes… gone, obliterated, nonexistent... of course this must be taken with a grain of salt and an imaginative mind.
In the past year, I began noticing Coulter for who she actually is: a human being, deprived of a soul no less, who is craving just as much attention as Paris Hilton; yet, instead of offering harmless, next-to-best advice like, “Believe in yourself and… everybody’s hot,” Coulter decides to make friends by saying the most disgusting, disrespectable, outright bull shit in, at and on every public forum in America. Were it not for the requirements of this assignment, I would never, in my entire life, waste one god-given minute reading her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Despite my utter abhorrer of the book, Godless offers an interesting argument concerning the relationship between modern religion and liberalism. A key concept of liberalism is the idea of a neutral government free from theological practice or religion. Coulter notes that this in itself is contradictory as all the elements of religion are present in liberalism. To understand such a bold accusation, one must understand the definition of religion… but no one can! Religion, as a topic of discussion or definition, is about as stable as Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign. Plainly said, religion is organized faith, but apparently, there are requirements written by God himself: creation mythology, ancient texts, clergy, churches, higher powers… the list could go on and on.
Coulter actually takes some of these homemade requirements and applies them to the idea of liberalism. She calls constitutions and various doctrines of individual rights their Bible; she compares schoolteachers and professors to priests and clergymen. She even portrays classrooms and public schools as churches. This does not seem too preposterous; however, by her interpretation, anything could be considered religion. Capitalism by this standard is religion. How many people in America today instill their devout faith in American economics? With credit becoming the stylish way to pay (as seen in Visa commercials where they lynch the guy in line who whips out his checkbook), it seems more and more Americans on a daily basis are assuming that the banking systems of America will not fail. What are they basing this on… statistics? The general decency of mankind? Faith? The answer is up in the air, just like organized religion we all know and love.
Much of the book focuses on the debate between intelligent design and evolution theory. Coulter, a devout Christian, follows the former. Discussing the internal mechanisms of a human cell, Coulter reflected, “(the cell) wasn’t created by natural selection-- that required high-tech engineering.” She even went as far as to say that “the evolution cult members” are practicing “bogus science”. How can one make that assumption when one believes in an equally “bogus” explanation for the world around them? Evidently, her arguments are completely biased and hypocritical. Then again, she is a self-described “polemicist” who does not believe in being “impartial or balanced” even in the world of political commentary. I am wasting my time.
The thing I do not understand is her intent of writing this book. She is purposely pointing out the “hypocrisy” behind atheist liberals all while outright ASSUMING that all liberals are atheists! To me, it seems she wrote this book out of anger, out of her strong distaste for the left side of the political spectrum. To her, the audiences are not Southern-bred WASPs, Catholic priests, what have you… She is just trying to piss off the left, saying whatever racist, derogatory, outrageous comment she can to sell her books. After all, five of her six books were on the New York Times Best Sellers list, and why wouldn’t they be with titles like High Crimes & Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans. A search of Ann Coulter on YouTube would result in several intriguing video clip titles of her at various public interactions: “Keith Olbermann slams Ann Coulter,” “Ann Coulter insults Judaism,” “Adam Corolla hangs up on Ann Coulter,” and my personal favorite, “Ann Coulter is a fucking moron.” Go back to the Third Reich and take your book with you.

Welcome

Sorry for the delay in leading everyone here. I hope you'll check the blog often for interesting articles and links, updates on class projects, and my own slightly weird opinions and ideas. I will typically use email to send along truly important information, but I will also do my best to post it here.

I hope you'll also use this space to share your thoughts, reflections, and opinions about what's been happening in class.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Free Press : Military says it paid Iraq papers for news

Scary stuff - trouble is, manufacturing news happens far more often than we realize.

http://www.freepress.net/news/12660

The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Here's the updated URL for LeBon's "The Crowd."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html

Remember: you'll only need to read Chapter 1.1-1.4

Does Plagiarism Bug You?

This is from a recent column by Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post. Is it, as the writer at the end of the article claims, a "witch hunt" or are editors finally becoming more careful, having been burned by the Jayson Blairs of the world?

Let me know what you think.



Ken Parish Perkins, television critic for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, resigned last week after being confronted with several instances of apparent plagiarism.

After a caller noted that Perkins had used a paragraph as it appeared verbatim in Entertainment Weekly, editors found several pieces in which he had lifted long phrases or sentences without attribution. Perkins was such a hard worker that "it's so hard for us to understand why this happened," Editor Jim Witt was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, the Bakersfield Californian found that more than a third of the 96 stories written by Nada Behziz contained "plagiarized material, misattributed quotes and information, factual errors or people whose existence could not be verified -- including seven physicians and a UCLA professor." Behziz, who was fired last month, told the paper: "This is a witch hunt. Too bad your news organization is not this vigilant in pursuing true wrongdoers."

Citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112001258_2.html

Should Journalists Do Charitable Work?

Take a look at this article from today's Comcast website - is it OK for a journalist to get involved in charitable work, especially to this scale? What are the pitfalls? Is this an ethical transgression?

TV Morning Shows in Compassion Competition

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

Retrieved September 29, 2005 from: http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/09/28/231029.html

NEW YORK - NBC's and ABC's morning shows are channeling their bitter competition into philanthropy for Hurricane Katrina victims.

NBC has turned New York's Rockefeller Plaza _ home of the "Today" show _ into "Humanity Plaza," a staging ground to build homes with Habitat for Humanity that will be trucked south for those who lost theirs in flooding.

"Good Morning America" has "adopted" the Pass Christian, Miss., hometown of anchor Robin Roberts, a Katrina-devastated community west of Gulfport, and is sending supplies and help to clear mountains of debris.

"If the competitive spirit leads to making a real difference and to having homes built and roadways cleared and schools started, it's a good thing," said Ben Sherwood, executive producer of "GMA," which is locked in an intense battle for viewers with "Today."

While few can argue the cause's worthiness, the efforts raise questions about the extent broadcast news divisions should get involved in stories they cover.

Volunteers have already built 23 homes and 97 doghouses outside NBC's midtown Manhattan offices, said Jim Bell, executive producer of "Today." Millions of dollars have been pledged to the effort, NBC said.

Neither network would say how much they have spent.

Celebrities Edie Falco and Steve Carell have joined Katie Couric and Matt Lauer to pound in nails, and Stevie Nicks entertained people at the 24-hour worksite with a concert Wednesday.

A "Today" crew will cover it when installation of the new homes begins Monday.

"There's nothing more important in the wake of images of displaced people than to try to give people their homes back," Bell said. "It seemed like a natural."

Two of Roberts' sisters lost their homes to Katrina, and her mother's home was damaged, Sherwood said. Roberts was on hand Tuesday to help as 55 truckloads of debris were hauled from town.

ABC is working with the Salvation Army and Corporation for National and Community Service on its project. There's already been more than $300,000 worth of contributions made, and the effort will continue for months.

The show's goal is to help individuals and open Pass Christian's school within two weeks.

Bob Steele, a senior journalism ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute, said that while corporate owners of news organizations are often active in the community, it gets tricky when the journalists themselves are involved.

Viewers may wonder if stories are going uncovered because of the attention paid to these efforts, or whether it affects objectivity, he said.

"No matter how noble the cause may be, it may undermine that unique and essential journalistic role, which is dependent on the principle of independence," Steele said.

Bell said he believed the effort fit into the unique news and entertainment mix of the morning shows. "I think it is our role to get involved and not just sit back and wait for someone else to help," he said.

Sherwood said the issue was discussed among ABC News management. "This feels like a special case and a special instance where action and journalism are consistent _ shining a light and also doing something, rolling up the sleeves," he said.

CBS' "The Early Show" is, like the network's other news programs, publicizing information about missing people, but has no philanthropic effort set up.

Thoughts on Presentations, Round 2

First, let me apologize for the lack of donuts - it was a crazy morning and, well - I owe you.

Let's talk presentations:

Matt and Manan: Where to begin? I dug the tone. I thought a few of your slides (especially the one that portrayed the African-American person on crack) were over the top. Still, I think humor is a good way to go here. It kept our attention, that's for sure. I also liked how you incorporated "institutional plagiarism" into the mix. Humor is a double-edged sword: it draws people in, but it can obscure your message. 12 points.

Kisha and Marcus: Solid presentation. I like the idea of an online tutorial, although I'm thinking that it should be part of a broader website. The trick is to get folks to use it once, then convince them to come back again and again. I also thought that the text in your examples could have been a bit easier to read - spaces between paragraphs, highlighting or bolding key terms - that sort of thing. 13 points.

Joby and Kurt: Great flow to your presentation. Using non-Glass examples, as it were, is a good idea, since not everyone who commits plagiarism, or who fabricates all or part of an article is a pathological liar like Glass. But is exposing someone as a liar enough of a punishment in our day and age, where we treat liars (Glass, Blair, Barnicle, etc.) like rock stars? Make sure you also clearly explain "trust" - I like to think of it as a contract between the reader (who plunks down 50 cents for the paper) and the journalist. 14 points.

Amanda, Kesun, and Andrew: The skit was a terrific idea. It raises the question, though: why do we have to be entertained all the time? I'm all for making learning painless, but at some point you have to bring folks back to earth and teach them the concepts. I don't think you need the movie at all - just a bit more prefatory material before the skit, and perhaps a section that involves the audience - "what would you do here?" - that kind of thing. 13 points.

All in all, a terrific batch of ideas. Thanks for sharing them with me. I have two final papers to hand back (Sarah/Jenna, and Amanda/Kesun/Andrew. I'll be happy to get them back to you next term. You can stop by my office, or email me.

I also have noticed that a few of you owe me some of the earlier (1-4) papers - please get them to me by Thursday, or else I'll be unable to grade them before I have to submit final grades.

Please stay in touch, and have a great holiday.