Excellent news in today’s Boston Globe. It seems that some of his prime sponsors – the ones paying for his $1 million salary – may have reached the tipping point.
I have the same question for the sponsors that I do for Severin’s bosses: Have you ever listened to his show? Why is it that the recent comments about Mexicans are more offensive to you than anything he has said in the past about Muslims, Arabs, Afghans, Iraqis, Africans, Spanish speakers, the French, poor people, female Democrats, homosexuals, or any number of other groups or individuals?
I’d prefer to see Jay’s career end through a general recognition of his hypocrisy rather than his offensiveness, but if this is what it takes to get Jay Severin off the air, so be it.
19 Comments
Did you catch the broadcast where severin suggested a military coup against Obama? Its not on their website.
If you know so much about Jay, you must listen to him on a daily basis. Please remember we have freedom of speech in this country and freedom to turn him off. I find many of the “journalists” on MSNBC just as offensive and therefor I do not watch the station – and you know what their ratings are like.
Find another cause to put all of your energy into – there are too many other ways to help this country than to rant about Jay…..
Susan: No, I don’t listen to Jay on a daily basis (these days, nobody does!). But I find your suggestion that I should simply avoid him peculiar. Suppose you found out that Osama bin Laden had figured out a way to broadcast a radio show and by telling outrageous lies he was turning hundreds of thousands of American citizens into enemies of our elected government. You’re saying the appropriate response would be for you and me to simply turn to a different channel?
Susan:
It is surprising (perhaps not really), to have women like yourself call up and fawn over
Severin right after he makes insulting and crude comments about women.
Most of these women have no sense of self-respect I think and are conditioned
to accept and perhaps enjoy the abuse.
David is helping this country by pointing out the charlatans and their loony followers
like yourself. You are free to do so on your own forum.
You asked for free speech. You got it!
Duli,
I am slightly offended, my friend. I took the time to comment on the “Jay Severin’s not dead yet” post by David. You responded to me by calling me “delusional.” And I again took 20 minutes or so to craft a response to your comment. You left me high and dry! No response, just allowing David and I to continue on our merry way of debating the entity that is Jay Severin. Then what do I see? You taking the time to attack somebody else (and apparently you’re insecure enough to attack Susan’s sense of womanhood as well, classy). Silence is consent, Duli. Moreover, Duli, you are not helping David’s case. Your personal attacks and improperly formed arguments are truly undermining David’s ability to have a sensible debate with folks like myself who politely disagree. The next time you decide to post please operate with some decorum, thank you.
David,
I will respond to your other post after this, but I wanted to make a quick comment. While I can appreciate your argument concerning Osama Bin Laden’s radio show, I find it too extreme to even put both men in the same sentence. I understand that you were probably just exaggerating to make a point, but perhaps a better route for the argument could have been more high level rather than analogous, perhaps discussing the public forum’s accessibility as it pertains to the venue of radio. For example, Howard Stern is much raunchier than Jay is, but he is on satellite radio, and thus is not as accessible.
Either way your condemnation of Mr. Severin as a manipulating, ego-driven, liar is at best a partial analysis. You admitted to not listening to him all the time, or even most of the time, so vilifying him in a universal fashion is simply unfair.
Lastly, all political and personal points aside, What do you think of Jay’s radio voice? Can you not appreciate the aesthetic nature that it has?
Patrick: you find it too extreme for me to make a point by mentioning Osama bin Laden and Jay Severin in the same sentence, but you wonder why I object to some of Jay’s debating tactics? Gimme a break.
I don’t follow your argument about why comparing Severin to Stern is more appropriate than comparing Severin to bin Laden.
I’ve listened to Jay’s show on dozens if not hundreds of occasions over the last 9 years. One doesn’t need to listen to every hour of his show to get an accurate sample. Most of what he says is simply a repeat of stuff he’s said earlier, anyway. In any case, I believe that he is indeed a manipulating, ego-driven, liar. He may be other things as well. Such as …?
As to the voice: well, yes … having been subjected to Curtis Sliwa a couple times recently, I will admit that I would rather listen to Jay do a mattress commercial than hear Sliwa discuss politics. I’ve said as much on twitter (@JaySeverinTwit).
David:
What I said about Susan is actually no different from Severin berating some his
callers – for example, when a listener calls and says that scandals du jour
are part of the republican playbook (he cuts off the caller by saying that “there are patriots
and then there are liberals”). That was a mild example: you *know*, he has called people
much worse things on air. I am just giving people who miss his taunts a taste of their
own medicine. Lets see how they feel.
If you think one has to listen to Severin’s show all the time to make an opinion
of him, then we cannot have a sensible discussion, because you are not being
sensible. I have heard him enough times to know his pattern and I bet so has David.
Decorum..?! Why don’t you demand that of Severin?
What was the “improperly formed” argument?
David,
I apologize for not being clear. I simply was offering another way for you to object to Jay’s freedom of speech. I was saying that Howard Stern is given more leeway to say whatever he likes because his audience is not as public. Jay needs to be held to a tighter standard because of the accessibility of his radio station, theoretically.
Secondly, you seem perturbed that I chose to find your Osama Bin Laden analogy to be “extreme.” You can’t understand why I would support Jay’s tactics and not be okay with your own. First and foremost, you have inherently linked your tactics here to Jay’s, basically implying that you are willing to stoop to his level. I find that a bit hypocritical. Moreover, you prove my point that essentially, bias is the determining factor of the perception on any person’s opinion. You’ve shown the ability to be just as “manipulative” as Jay, thus making this discussion more about individual perspective rather than one man’s quest for intellectual validation.
Lastly, If you can appreciate the aesthetic nature of Jay’s voice, than why not support him using that voice on the radio. You may disagree with his tactics (although you may engage in them every now and then), but his voice is what separates him from the common radio personality. I think that is the reason he is given so much grief by the common liberal. His voice is so good that people hang on his every word much more passionately.
Jay belongs on the radio.
I don’t object to Jay’s freedom of speech. He’s more than welcome to say whatever he likes in his living room or on a box in the Boston Common. But I reserve the right (and consider it an obligation) to compete with him in the “marketplace of ideas.” In an ideal world, he’d keep his show and I’d be on the air with him keeping him honest. Since that’s not going to happen, I figure the next best thing is expose his lies in a public forum like this. And since his audience is/was vastly larger than mine, the only way I can really succeed is for him to get off the air.
I actually see a big difference between my bin Laden argument and Jay’s usual tactics. I created a hypothetical to prove a point — a point, by the way, that you seem to agree with. Hypotheticals are not in themselves manipulative; however, posing a hypothetical and then objecting to a variation of the same hypothetical on the grounds that it’s unrealistic is. (You read my recent blog about that, right?)
If I really wanted to play Jay’s game, I would say something like “Why do I object to Jay being on the radio? Because Jay Severin is a domestic enemy of the United States. If you agree with Jay Severin, you are contributing to the decline of American culture. Jay Severin is the Osama bin Laden of the right wing. If you showed Jay Severin a magic button right now that would instantly kill every Muslim man, woman, and child on Earth, he’d ask you how much he would have to pay you so that you’d let him push it. Actually I take that back. What Jay Severin would actually do is ask if you have a different button — one that wouldn’t kill every Muslim instantly but instead would cause them all to die slowly and in great agony.”
Now what I just wrote may be me more entertaining than what I usually say about Jay, but I don’t believe it, so I wouldn’t actually say something like that with a straight face. But Jay does, all the time.
Duli,
First off, my name is Patrick.
Second, I fail to see how acting the way you criticize Jay for acting separates you in anyway. Saying that you should be able to insult others because Jay does it its laughably ignorant. This is a rampant problem with a lot pf people actually. They become so enraged by “bad behavior” that they lose sight of proper behavior themselves when it comes offering a critique.
As far your improperly formed argument?
In your original post on the thread that you have still not responded to, you claim that Jay cannot possibly engender any type of discourse. Its abundantly clear that you either do not understand the full spectrum of the term “discourse” or you are simply blinded by your animosity toward Jay. Either way, the very discussion that you and I are having is a discourse created by your best friend. You were mistaken when considering discourse as a simple, linear forum of discussion. Please take some time to re-read the other thread so you can adequately respond, it would aid in no longer retarding this discussion, thank you in advance.
Certainly, one does not have the time to listen to every word out of Jay’s mouth from 3-7 every weekday. However, I did not say you cannot form ANY opinion about Jay, I said you cannot form “universalized” opinions about Jay, because you are only listening to a piece of the puzzle. Thats all, strict logic. Again, its very important that you take your time when reading comments, and take even more time thinking about the way in which you will respond.
Hey David,
“I actually see a big difference between my bin Laden argument and Jay’s usual tactics. I created a hypothetical to prove a point — a point, by the way, that you seem to agree with. Hypotheticals are not in themselves manipulative; however, posing a hypothetical and then objecting to a variation of the same hypothetical on the grounds that it’s unrealistic is. (You read my recent blog about that, right?)”
I apologize, but I am having some trouble fully understanding what your saying here…do you think you could elaborate? or perhaps explain it in a different way. I am just pretty dumb, and I need some clarification before I proceed with a reply.
Patrick, maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I thought you were saying that comparing Jay to Osama was beyond the pale. And in response, I was pointing out that there’s a big difference in my mind between saying “suppose it wasn’t Jay on the radio but rather Osama,” and saying “Jay is like Osama.” I don’t think I’ve ever criticized Jay for using extreme examples in order to make a point, but if I have please show me where.
Patrick
I do agree that discourse need not be linear and that there is something valuable
in being inspired (or offended) enough to come home and discuss with friends and family what someone has said. However I have a feeling that we are not speaking
of the same person at this present moment. Let me elaborate.
Jay did expose me to ideas that did shake some of my core beliefs. For example, given
my background, I found it astounding and enlightening that one could believe that
government cannot be an agent of social change. It was a fundamental assumption
and I do credit Jay for helping me at least consider that option. I now fully embrace
it.
However, this is not the same Jay that called Barack Obama a “dangerous Muslim socialist” and made such enormously offensive (and patently false) statements
about people from Mexico. Having the bully pulpit means you have a responsibility.
You cannot use that to spread hate. It is a simple concept really and transcends the fact
whether your comments inspire or provoke debate.
On retrospect, I think my comments to Susan (and perhaps to you) were too harsh
and showed little thought and no respect. I am actually not like that at all in real life
and I take back what I said, with full apologies. (Unfortunately, its harder to retract
what one writes when it is on the net).
“I’d prefer to see Jay’s career end through a general recognition of his hypocrisy rather than his offensiveness, but if this is what it takes to get Jay Severin off the air, so be it.”
Al Capone was indicted for tax evasion.
But before Patrick attacks me for comparing Jay Severin to one of the most notorious gangsters of memory, I do not believe that Jay is dangerous.
Despite the liberal guilt I instantly feel when any white person makes an offensive comment directed toward a non-white person or group, I have to confess that Jay makes me laugh. He also makes me think.
Of course, I’m smart enough to take everything he says with a healthy grain of salt (as we should all do with everyone)…
Duli: Although one ought not to use the bully pulpit to spread hate, that doesn’t mean one cannot. We have to be extremely careful about the difference between rejecting the views of those we disagree with and silencing those views through force (of arms or law).
Whyzelle: Laughing and thinking are good things, and if that’s what most of Jay’s audience are doing then I wouldn’t have a problem. What worries me is that the vast majority of his callers seem to take his comments not with a grain of salt but with the seriousness normally reserved for the communal wafer.
You’re worried that Jay’s audience may believe everything they hear? That is a completely valid concern. I, too, would worry about anyone who believes everything they hear, or everything even they read.
But how would you have Jay address this problematic “seriousness”? Would you have him begin every broadcast with a disclaimer that everything he says is simply his own opinion? That seems redundant. Even Orson Welles began and ended his famous Halloween 1938 broadcast with a disclaimer, but listeners panicked.
Despite the mellifluous authority with which Jay speaks, his opinion is just that. This may seem uncompassionate, but I am more inclined to blame the gullible, especially in the Information Age.
No, Whyzelle. People who believe everything they hear cannot be helped. The thing is, Jay would NEVER say that everything he says is simply his own opinion because part of his shtick is that he is presenting the “facts” that you won’t find in the “liberal mainstream media.” If he did limit his comments to things that were just his opinion, then I really wouldn’t care how many references he made to Hilary Clinton’s buttocks or which cultures he considers “primitive.” And that’s why it saddens me (a bit) that what led to his suspension was an expression of his opinion rather than his twisting of the facts. I would also have more tolerance for him if he allowed his critics to engage him in serious debate rather than hanging up on and ridiculing them every time he got into trouble.
David,
I suppose I have a lot to address here, so bear with me…
In regards to your analogy concerning Osama Bin Laden:
My purpose was to simply disagree with your method, not necessarily your point (which you alluded to in one of your earlier posts.) I offered an alternative method to asserting your point, which was to use “accessibility” as the foundation, rather than the all too often used “Hitler argument.”
If I may elaborate on the Hitler argument for a bit:
This is a truly troubling paradigm that exists with in the discourse of the modern day. In an attempt to really solidify one’s point, there seems to be a desire to use the most concrete example of evil that is socially known. For the last eight years, the battle cry from the extreme left has been to compare Bush to Hitler, or just to simply compare him to the Nazis. To use the term of this particular thread, this argument is first and foremost, “intellectual lazy.” Its comparing two different times in history, it compares two men that are not comparable, it compares two systems that are not comparable, and it serves to undermine the true evil that existed in Nazi Germany.
Bush is not the only victim of the “Hitler Analogy.” Many conservatives use Stalin as their scapegoat for any liberal who is a little too left leaning for their liking. In fact the right has been so good with creating a monster out of communism, that just the word itself is a curse word. Earlier in this thread, Duli was expressing his concern that Obama was being called a “communist” by Severin. The question that comes up immediately is “why is being called a communist a bad thing?” The answer is fairly simple, communism has been effectively destroyed in the minds of mainstream America. Obama does in fact, support some policies that have some communistic tendencies, or socialist tendencies if that makes you feel better. Why should we shy away from labeling policies as they are? Communism is not bad, capitalism is not bad, there just systems, they do not have motives inherently built into them. These systems are just run by people, who’s nature is to be selfish, and thus pervert their existence. What exists now in the world is an ever-evolving system that tries to correct the flaws of each ideology (capitalism and communism) through statutory means (not possible, by the way).
So David, with regards to your analogy, I was fearful of the infinite regress of the “Hitler argument”, and wanted to re-direct the discussion to avoid the inevitable intellectual war of attrition.
David, I don’t know if there is a limit that can I type on these posts, so I will continue on another post to address the discussion that you and Whyzelle have gotten into.
David, I am new to Jay and to this blog so honestly I haven’t been paying attention long enough to witness him twisting facts. I want to ask you for an enumerated list with transcript links attached, but that would be ridiculous. Of course… it would be unlike me to take everything you say at face value without that all-important, aforementioned preservative. (Haha.)
Patrick, I can see why you’d be bothered by the Hitler Argument or Hitler Analogy. I’ll point you to Godwin’s Law. In effect, you’re proving your own point. Well done!