Art Brisbane, the public editor and reader ombudsman of the New York Times, responded to my inquiry about columnist Charles M. Blow’s declaration that Mitt Romney should “stick that in your magic underwear,” a reference to a Mormon religious practice.
Mr.Geraghty: I agree this type of tweet isn’t a good idea. I have generally taken the view that ad hominem attacks are problematic journalistically (see link below to a column I write about a Joe Nocera piece). And I personally disagree with criticizing anyone based on religious belief. Because the writer in this case is an Op-Ed writer, whose opinions are his own, I do not plan to intervene to disagree with the opinion itself. But I think tweets of this kind are a mistake.
Brisbane wrote again, a few moments later, to note Blow apologized this morning. “Btw, the comment I made about Mormonism during Wed.’s debate was inappropriate, and I regret it. I’m willing to admit that with no caveats.”
Of course, this still leaves Blow’s comment from yesterday that it was “Time to scratch some of this right wing lice out of my timeline.”
Referring to those of different views as parasitic insects that must be eliminated. No uncomfortable historical parallels there, right?
But not worth intervening to disagree with the opinion itself, I suppose.
If only Mr. Blow had listened to advice like this:
I know that he likes to joke and tease. I have even joked with him. So I can believe that, in his mind, he may have thought that these were just harmless jokes in which the violence was fictional and funny.
But in the real world — where bullying and violence against gays and lesbians, or even those assumed to be so, is all too real — “jokes” like his hold no humor. There are too many bruised ribs and black eyes and buried bodies for the targets of this violence to just lighten up and laugh.
We all have to understand that effects can operate independent of intent, that subconscious biases can move counter to conscious egalitarianism, and that malice need not be present within the individual to fuel the maliciousness of the society at large.
The author of those words is . . . Charles Blow, an entire 13 days ago.
Mitt's religion, like Newt's and Rick's, are in play. Why? Because they've all made theology a stalking horse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe statement has little to do with theology and more to do with bigotry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot true. Romney is the only candidate that has not made his religion a stalking horse. He is the only candidate who has not claimed a heavenly mandate for his candidacy. He hasn't brought his religion into play at all. It has been done for him. Romney, in no way, brought this on himself, except by being Mormon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTalking about your religion gives a green light to others to insult your religion?
When precisely did either Mitt or Newt, put their religion "in play"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood points. Plus I have no idea what he means by "stalking horse." Particularly in Mitt's case, he generally avoids reference to his faith, I assume because it is often the target of misinformation and bigotry. Charles Blow is an example, but other examples have shown up in comments on NRO and other conservative sites. Some of the comments get nastier than Blow's. So Mitt wisely tries not to bring it up. Why that is a "stalking horse" is beyond me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf that's so, I guess Obama's religion should be in play as well? Maybe it's ok since he "denounced" his 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, you're wrong. Their religion is not in play because 'they've all made theology a stalking horse." In each case their religion is in play because this is a free country and the beliefs that a Presidential candidate may have are a proper matter for comment. It is especially a matter of concern that our potential Presidential candidates may believe in imaginary friends, whatever the particular character of their belief happens to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProgressives just want to rule the world. This election has become about who is in charge here. The democrat alliance of government employees, government dependents, radical feminists, gay activists, environmental wackos, hipsters, Hollywood, and assorted poorly educated drones are asserting their primacy. Making Romney our champion is just a way of trying to avoid a clear contest between Them and Us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo if Mitt wears "Magic Silk," I guess Rick wears "Good Devil," Paul wears "Papi" and Newt wears "Players." On the other side, Barney Frank wears custom "Fruit of the Loom" (custom from the package, that is) and Pelosi probably wears "Playtex." I say that about Nancy since you'd have to "Cross Your Heart" a bunch with all the lies she tells.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief! To borrow from the Bard: this is A Tempest in a Teapot and Much Ado About Nothing. To characterize that silly Tweet as anything more than what is was is a shocking bit of overreaching by self appointed members of the Thought Police. The hypersensitivity that describes Mr. Blow's petulant jibe as criticizing a religion is nothing short of browbeating the oposition into silence. Once a charge of religious, racial or sexual intolerance is raised, no matter how specious the charge may be, all future and beneficial dialog is stymied and we are all the poorer. The issue then becomes the feigned offense, obfuscating the legitmate and important matter.
The more embarrassing of Mr. Blow's actions was the untoward, disingenuous and extorted apology. As a columnist I would expect him to have a great deal more respect and support for his First Amendment rights.
Sheesh!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with you about the triviality of the comment. However, I believe what Mr. Geraghty is tacitly pointing out is the inherent hypocrisy of columnists like Blow, the blatant double standard of screeching about the vaguest of racial/religious/sexist overtones (mostly imagined) while personally indulging their use with impunity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief! To borrow from the Bard: this is A Tempest in a Teapot and Much Ado About Nothing. To characterize that silly Tweet as anything more than what is was is a shocking bit of overreaching by self appointed members of the Thought Police. The hypersensitivity that describes Mr. Blow's petulant jibe as criticizing a religion is nothing short of browbeating the oposition into silence. Once a charge of religious, racial or sexual intolerance is raised, no matter how specious the charge may be, all future and beneficial dialog is stymied and we are all the poorer. The issue then becomes the feigned offense, obfuscating the legitmate and important matter.
The more embarrassing of Mr. Blow's actions was the untoward, disingenuous and extorted apology. As a columnist I would expect him to have a great deal more respect and support for his First Amendment rights.
Sheesh!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're reaching.
Calling Blow out as a hypocrite for doing exactly as he has criticizes others for doing in no way stymies reasonable and respectful discussion. That is a huge reach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. It's one thing for, say, two members of the clergy to pass an inside joke about wearing a collar. It's another thing for enemies of people of the cloth to make a venomous slight against them.
Blow's comments were clearly in the latter category.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. It's one thing for, say, two members of the clergy to pass an inside joke about wearing a collar. It's another thing for enemies of people of the cloth to make a venomous slight against them.
Blow's comments were clearly in the latter category.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. Our Republic's government is out of control as never before, and the issue for Charles M. Blowhard is Romney's undies? Just be glad Romney wears some....for all I know Newt may go Commando, given his passion on the issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't nice to know that the left who claims to be so tolerant and/or spouts off the most about the need for tolerance is the least tolerant of all!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo Blow
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe intolerance of the radical left hasn't changed since Stalin's time. Their hypocritical sanctimony is stunning, though I don't know why we're still stunned by it. The shrillness of their rhetoric shows how desperate they are. The left are never more influential than when they are out of power, because they are skilled at manipulating emotions and assailing their ideological competition with lies and character assassination. When they are in power they can't keep their factions in line. It's difficult to have a united front when the only commonality is their hatred and intolerance of other points of view. Verbal sticks and stones are capable of inspiring some to break other people's bones, as Mr. Blow observed. Apparently he's okay with breaking conservative bones. The left have shown time and again they are willing to take out a few million people they don't like. It's the progressives who have fallen and can't get up. Put that in your underpants and smoke it, Mr. Blow.
Of course, references to Mormon religious clothing are not nearly as edgy or funny or hurtful to Mormons as Blow seems to think. Deploying them, however, marks Blow as a particular type of lefty: endlessly pious about things he holds sacred, but all too eager to take cheap shots at the sacred things of a doggedly traditional/conservative religious minority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew York Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in 2011. Rather than apologize, the NY Times continued to peddle a conservative-rhetoric-kills narrative, even after it became apparent that the shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic with no coherent political beliefs. So here's a health & safety tip: Never hold your breath waiting for the NY Times to apologize for slandering or insulting conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse