Freedom of Difference

The hullabaloo over Obama's selection of Rick Warren to lead the invocation at the Inauguration has exposed the limits to which progressives are willing to embrace "post-partisan politics." While I can understand their disdain for a man who rejects gay marriage and supported Prop 8, those who protest his selection make the critical error of perpetuating the mentality that one must only associate with those that agree on everything. For all his faults--and there are enough--Rick Warren is hardly a Pat Robertson or James Dobson, those luminaries who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on the presence of gays in this country. Moreover, Warren has consistently tried to move evangelical Christians toward social causes such as poverty-alleviation, an important service for which the nation ought to be grateful. If for nothing else, Warren ought to be embraced for his attempt to change the evangelicals' dismaying record of being one-trick ponies, for their willingness to ignore social injustice so long as "higher values" such as a public expression of faith are allowed. In this context, Obama's invitation to Warren ought to be commended because someone evangelicals admire will now publicly lead them in praying for the new president and his leadership. If you think this is a meaningless gesture, then you are no more interested in having a government for all Americans than were the cast of characters who "led" for the past eight years. Warren's presence at the Inaugural stage ought to be more disconcerting to the Christian right than for the progressive left. This is a splendid opportunity to engage the two parts of the country that do not care to acknowledge each other, let alone tolerate their differences in views. The fight over gay marriage will continue as it should in popular culture, values, and in government--including in the courts. That should not prevent collaboration in other important areas, particularly in tackling poverty. An acknowledgment of the other might be a good first step toward increasing collaboration. And, who knows, it might actually lead to greater dialogue and the chance for persuasion, as opposed to legal coercion.

Bias? Common Sense? Journalism?

What do you, noble reader, expect of your journalists?

a) Present the facts and let the smarty audience decide.
b) Go ahead and point out outright falsehoods when reciting the news.
c) Make up stuff that I want to hear.
d) News? Ha!

Many journies brag about following the first approach, but it is clearly difficult to present all the facts of any given situation due to space/time constraints, so, the reportahs must, to some degree, present what they think is relevant. But, what about "simply relaying" something that Ms. X and Mr. Y said when you know Mr. Y's talking gibberish? Is that making a false moral equivalency, if you pretend not to notice that one is a raving lunatic, all in the name of letting the audience decide?

CNN's Campbell Brown seems to think so, and is attempting to "cut through the bull****" in her new show: No Bias, No Bull. Campbell uses the following example to make her point: If one person says it's raining outside, and another says it's sunny, the journalist should have the common sense to look out the window and report which person ought to be gently led away. ('gram to Campbell: Suggest tweak example STOP It possible both sun and rain STOP)

Personally, I applaud her efforts, if she is truly sincere and not just toying with our emotions, to wrest back the mantle of "no bias" from the Bill O'Reillys and the Keith Olbermanns whose shrill partisanship is dismaying. (Not, of course, that there's any moral equivalency between the two; one of them is a complete jackass.) By some stroke of luck, Campbell Brown's show is scheduled for the same time slot as the aforementioned shrillsters. (Centrism...that's our rallying cry! And money maker!)

This whole discussion brought to mind something Paul Begala (no shrinking violet himself, in terms of the spin ability) said last month (ignore the candidate-bashing):

If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: "CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE."
Why doesn't somebody call Neil Armstrong? He's been there. Or go to the Smithsonian and open the glass case that contains a piece of the moon. The moon is a rock. That's a fact, Jack.

Hyok, hyok. Mr. Begala, here's the truth: Neil Armstrong never went to the moon. NASA faked it all.

How's that for journalistic excellence?