What Jay Severin thinks about his critics

As I mentioned in the last post, I was on the radio yesterday with Jay Severin (the talk show host formerly known as Jimmy Severino). I guess I got under his skin, because this is what he said to his listeners after the break (apologies for any transcription errors — my recording quality wasn’t very good this time). This monologue went on for a little over six minutes, longer even than our original dialogue.

(Chuckles) I love the power of our program, and I love that it turns people on, and I love that it provokes people. Can you imagine being — (laughs) — someone who — (laughs) — he’s staying home, hovering around the radio, waiting for me to say something controversial like "the poor don’t bathe as often we do and as a result they may not smell as nice." Can you imagine, can you imagine like taking such great umbrage at that, that you call up and say "Let me quote you! Let me get this right about the poor and bathing! Whoa! An expose!" What is this? Some pathetic half-assed wanker from the local membership of Media Matters? "Let me get this right! Did you say the poor don’t smell well?" It’s really very sad. You know, and one thinks about bloggers, all the things they say about bloggers. This just reinforces it. Some friendless, underemployed, wanking dwarf sitting at home going "Did you say that the poor don’t bathe?" Well I’m happy to be of service to everyone. (Laughs) Six-one-seven, eight-two-two, one ninety-six nine, Verizon Wireless callers pound ninety-six nine. The thing is, I don’t doubt that this wanker in question could find an audience for the notion that people would be offended that I might say that the poor don’t smell nice. Because, don’t forget, these days the incipient fascism which rules in our land is that the true spirit of freedom of speech is gone, dead, and buried, and shame on you, because you’re allowing it to happen. I don’t mean to place this burden on you and me, but who else is going to protect it? Who else but we are going to protect this? That’s exactly what’s happening. Freedom of speech — the spirit of freedom of speech — is gone, dead, and buried. You know this from everyday life. And as I’ve written about and as I’ve said, the new standard is not whether what you said is true, and for many centuries truth has been the standard. In English common law, and down until today, in our own system of jurisprudence, in libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If you write about someone or say about someone something damaging, you can prevent any liability to yourself by having written it or said it if what you said is true. That’s it. End of the story. No matter how damaging or embarrassing it might be. If what you wrote or said is true, end of story. End of case. Truth is an absolute defense in libel law. That has guided our public discourse for many centuries. And now we live in a time in which the standard has passed from whether or not there’s an element of truth to what you’ve said or whether or not it can be established to be true, was it, you know, your personal opinion; now the standard is "did somebody’s feewings get huht?" Is somebody’s feewings huht? ‘Cause if you huht someone’s feewings …. What you do, when someone on the radio or someone at your dinner party or anywhere else says something that you regard as offensive, what you do is, you reach and you turn the dial. Or you don’t extend them an invitation to your next dinner party. What you don’t do is join a mass of imbeciles who want to deprive someone of their livelihood because they’re expressing their opinion. If you are so easily bruised that the expression of opinion damages you, then you need psychiatric help and quickly. Because big grown-up women and men are presumed in our society to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of conversation and of opinion, even if some of that opinion is a little bit out there. Truth is an absolute defense, and even when it’s not, opinion is opinion, and the most sacred of the amendments to our Constitution, of our Bill of Rights, the reason I believe the founding fathers chose it as the first one, is the freedom of speech. And with all we have to discuss, that some poor, friendless, unemployed wanker is sitting at home, trying to get my exact words about whether or not I said the poor smell … what can I say? Except I think he probably smells.

Allow me, if I may, a point-by-point rebuttal and commentary.

"he’s staying home, hovering around the radio, waiting for me to say something controversial" — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, I heard Jay’s original comment on my car radio, got ticked off, got home, called in, and did a bunch of work while I was on hold.

"the local membership of Media Matters" — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. I am not in fact a member of Media Matters. But I can see why Jay might think that. Go to their web site and search for Severin. They’re compiling a dossier of his most outrageous remarks.

"one thinks about bloggers, all the things they say about bloggers. This just reinforces it" — Psst, Jay … You’re a blogger!

"Some friendless, underemployed, wanking dwarf" — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. Only some of these characterizations are true.

"the true spirit of freedom of speech is gone, dead, and buried" — Objection: relevance? Did I ever say anything to suggest that Jay should be prevented from saying stupid things or punished for doing so? No, I only asked him to consider whether he really wants to be on record as believing that the poor smell bad. By changing the subject to freedom of speech, Jay tries to escape an argument he’s bound to lose by turning it into one he’s bound to win.

"in libel law, truth is an absolute defense" — Objection: relevance? Did I accuse you of libel or slander? I don’t think so. Furthermore, what you said is demonstrably untrue. All I need to do is find one poor person who doesn’t smell bad. Do you really think that would be hard? What you are guilty of is not libel, it is prejudice and bigotry. And truth is not an absolute defense for that.

"when someone on the radio … says something that you regard as offensive, what you do is, you reach and you turn the dial" — Oh really? What happened to your marketplace of ideas philosophy, Jay? Are you actually saying that anyone who disagrees with you should just shut up? Do you really want to be on record with that position? Because it contradicts what you’ve said on the radio many times.

"a mass of imbeciles who want to deprive someone of their livelihood because they’re expressing their opinion" — If you lose your job, Jay, it will be because of poor ratings, not because I object to anything you say. Although I will admit that by exposing your weaknesses I do hope to have your listeners take you less seriously and ultimately choose to turn the dial themselves.

"big grown-up women and men are presumed in our society to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of conversation and of opinion" — That was the presumption I made about you, Jay, but you proved me wrong.

"I think he probably smells" — Ooh, that hurt. What would be an appropriate response? Something on the order of "it takes one to know one?"

I’d go on, but I have a wanking appointment in ten minutes.