This one struck Waldo from the get-go. The more political the blog, the more likely an excerpted quote, or an explanation missing easy verification means the current blogger is "interpreting" the original source. If you find you have to chase an original source back more than one link- once again- be wary. Way too often government and think thank reports will be quoted without linking, especially in dead-tree papers. It pays to take the time to run the report to ground and see the context in which the quote appears.
Here's an example our friend The Delaware Libertarian put up back int eh campaign season. While it involves a Waldopost, the point he's making is how another blogger and Waldo could read the same original interview and come up with diametrically opposed comments on it:
THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2008
It was the best of the blogosphere, it was the worst of the blogosphere....
What's really intriguing is how different posts get spun at different blogs, even though people usually have the ability to click through and check for themselves.
I've come to believe that probably fewer than 5-10% of readers--especially those who believe in the slant taken by the blog in question--ever click through to determine whether stories are being reported accurately, or if quotations are taken out of context.
Here's my case study for today, based on the interview that occasionally-in-the-public-eye-for-a-few-seconds LP Veep Candidate Wayne Allyn Root gave to Queerty in San Francisco.
Eric Dondero's Libertarian GOPer sandwiches in one Root quotation into this characterization of the interview:
That Root must have put it to them queers supporting that liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights.
On the other hand, Waldo characterizes the interview like this:
Actually, having read Waldo's version first (which leaves Root looking like a faux-Libertarian Dixiecrat), it took me a few minutes to be sure thatthey were both talking about the same original post.
So how did the Waynster actually deal with gay marriage in the original?
So does Wayne rebuke that nasty ole queer agenda? Actually, what he seems to do is (a) accept Bob Barr's idea that Libertarianism equates with States-Rights [see Steve Kubby for a thoroughly Libertarian refutation of that particular notion]; (b) and if a state that is progressive [which means not religious to Wayne] wants gay marriage, fine. Just don't come down to good old religious Georgia or Alabama where we keep out negroes ... oops, I mean our faggots ... in line.
So in Wayne Root's America, the majority of voters in any state get to define the rights of American citizens, and if you don't like that decision you can just get the hell out. We'll provide the crosses to light your way.
This, everyone will be pleased to know, is the Libertarian stand on gay marriage--at least according to Eric Dondero, Wayne Allyn Root, and Bob Barr.
So my conclusion from all this (aside from the fact that Wayne should go back to online gambling) is: if Waldo presents a link, you can be pretty sure the original post has been correctly characterized. If Eric Dondero puts up a link--you'd better go check for yourself.
I've come to believe that probably fewer than 5-10% of readers--especially those who believe in the slant taken by the blog in question--ever click through to determine whether stories are being reported accurately, or if quotations are taken out of context.
Here's my case study for today, based on the interview that occasionally-in-the-public-eye-for-a-few-seconds LP Veep Candidate Wayne Allyn Root gave to Queerty in San Francisco.
Eric Dondero's Libertarian GOPer sandwiches in one Root quotation into this characterization of the interview:
Libertarian VP Candidate Wayne Root blasts Affirmative Action in Interview with Gay Magazine: Calls for Free Market-based diversity
Wayne Root has been accused in the past as having a heluva lot of Chuztpa. He tells it like it is, even if it may not jive with what certain individuals or groups want to hear at the time.
In the latest edition of Queerty, an major on-line magazine for Gay/Lesbian Americans, Root doesn't back down. In response to a question on the issue of special rights for Gays and Minorities, he equates government-forced Affirmative Action to "Big Brother Socialism."...
[Root quotation]
Also in the interview Root outlines the libertarian stance on Gay Marriage, at variance with the liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights. Root says, Government should stay the hell out of the issue of Marriage altogether.
That Root must have put it to them queers supporting that liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights.
On the other hand, Waldo characterizes the interview like this:
Libertarian veep Wayne Allyn Root, who recently made it onto Bob Barr's website, has surfaced for an interview- of all places- with the blog Queerty. It's worth reading to see how someone acquainted with gay rights asks the right followup questions. Watch Root- like Barr-stake his flag on marriage equality as a states' rights question, reassuring the South they'll never have to deal with it, while oozing his way around why he and Barr don't want a full repeal of DOMA.
Actually, having read Waldo's version first (which leaves Root looking like a faux-Libertarian Dixiecrat), it took me a few minutes to be sure thatthey were both talking about the same original post.
So how did the Waynster actually deal with gay marriage in the original?
AB: Switching gears here, getting a little more gay, what’s your stance on DOMA?
WR: Well, my stance is pretty simple. First of all, I believe it’s none of the government’s business to decide marriage at all. It’s a private ceremony or a religious ceremony. A church has a right to define it privately and if a church wants to ban - if the Catholic church or the Protestant church wants to say that two people of the same sex can’t get married, they can do that. It’s a free world and it’s a private enterprise. But, then, you have a right as a gay man or a lesbian woman to go and get married in a private ceremony by somebody who will marry you. It’s not a government’s job to license marriage. The government is a busy body. They try to get involved in people’s live and control us. The real answer is that religion shouldn’t in any way be involved in government and the government shouldn’t in any way license or get involved in religion and therefore I would fight to the death for anyone who is religious to practice their religion and I’d fight to the death for anyone who is not religious to not practice their religion. I’m not coming down on anyone’s side. I’m just saying the government should stay out of the process.
AB: Right, but part of DOMA is that the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriages, even if a state like Massachusetts or California does recognize them. What is your stance on that specific part of DOMA?
WR: Well, as much as I’d like government to be out of it completely, I’ve always been a states’ rights person. If you can’t progress on a federal level, at least you can get it inch-by-inch on a state-by-state level. I think it’s basically good for the people, if they have to be decided at all, first of all - like I said, I keep coming down on the side of fewer laws in general and the less government, the better, state or federal - but if it has to be decided, at least let’s get progress on the state level. That’s what I say about gay marriage or medical marijuana or online gambling. If Massachusetts or California and other progressive states legalize gay marriage, I say “great” and you as a gay person may want to go live there and feel more free, that’s great. If someone’s very deeply religious and they don’t want gay marriage and they therefore want therefore to choose to live in Alabama, Georgia or states with a more religious bent who don’t want to legalize it, then I say more power to those people who want to live in Georgia or Alabama.
So does Wayne rebuke that nasty ole queer agenda? Actually, what he seems to do is (a) accept Bob Barr's idea that Libertarianism equates with States-Rights [see Steve Kubby for a thoroughly Libertarian refutation of that particular notion]; (b) and if a state that is progressive [which means not religious to Wayne] wants gay marriage, fine. Just don't come down to good old religious Georgia or Alabama where we keep out negroes ... oops, I mean our faggots ... in line.
So in Wayne Root's America, the majority of voters in any state get to define the rights of American citizens, and if you don't like that decision you can just get the hell out. We'll provide the crosses to light your way.
This, everyone will be pleased to know, is the Libertarian stand on gay marriage--at least according to Eric Dondero, Wayne Allyn Root, and Bob Barr.
So my conclusion from all this (aside from the fact that Wayne should go back to online gambling) is: if Waldo presents a link, you can be pretty sure the original post has been correctly characterized. If Eric Dondero puts up a link--you'd better go check for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment