Miller to O’Reilly: You’re not actually showing the photos of Warren Jeffs kissing little girls, are you?
posted at 10:18 pm on May 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Obviously we’re not the only ones who’ve noticed the Factor’s habit of decrying exploitation while displaying the evidence, but nothing I could say can match Miller’s look of incredulity near the beginning here. In O’Reilly’s defense, I don’t know how one would go about turning DM’s advice into some bright-line rule against shock video of any kind. It’s always going to be a judgment call between the value of the image as a catalyst for some sort of policy response to injustice versus its titillation quotient. An easy example of the former is the Rodney King video; an easy example of the latter is the Girls Gone Wild video of Spitzer’s hooker shaking her thang, which Bill couldn’t resist airing (follow the link up above). I posted the video myself of the girl in Florida getting beat up, not because it was exciting but because you genuinely couldn’t appreciate how vicious it was without seeing it. Which is to say, if the image is the only way to truly understand why a particular piece of news is newsworthy, then hey. (That goes double for, say, the Mohammed cartoons, but that’s a separate issue.) Factor in the viewer’s own philosophical perspective on injustice — doves want to see the coffins coming home from Iraq but not necessarily replays of the 9/11 jumpers, hawks vice versa — and how do you draw any universal line? Miller’s right that this does feel gratuitous and unnecessary, but considering that the photos will make you want to vomit, they’re awfully strong medicine in raising awareness about “quirky” little polygamous sects like Jeffs’s. Cue Potter Stewart.
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Oh, sorry. I don’t divulge private information about myself on public blogs, you are welcome to think whatever you like. Perhaps you would like to tell us all about yourself.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 3:24 PM
What do you want to know, I won’t hide any agenda. The “private information” will let us know where you are coming from. If you are an atheist, polygamist, agnostic, Catholic, Mormon, satan-worshipper, FLDS member, then we will know in what context you speak.
Most bloggers know about a good portion of my personal life, just not my name, address, phone number, but anything else, ask.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Actually, I don’t want to know anything, I’m just not interested.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I think this pretty much sums up your intellect…in a matter of just 15 minutes.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM
There you go again, calling me a liar. I did hear that the court ruled that the children should be returned based on not enough evidence to prove imminent danger. What I “managed to miss,” was the fact the the state had backed up on at least 20 of the children being underage. I amended my previous assertion adding that relevant information. Can you give me a link (an objective news link please) that shows the court dealt with the “grooming” issue.
I called you “overwrought,” because you attacked me personally as a liar and having ulterior motives of hating these people because I posted my reasons for being indecisive about the case and sympathetic to both sides of the argument. I still assert that you were way out of line and “overwrought,” emotionally especially considering that I was not even addressing you.
It is my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, that the state has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and most of the children remain in CPS custody at this point. If the TSC finds that there is sufficient evidence to keep the children in state custody will you change your opinion based on the higher court’s findings? If it is definately established that underage girls are illegally marrying adult men, will you then agree that there is abuse taking place in the compound?
If it is established otherwise, I will wholeheartedly agree with you.
Renae on May 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM
You are wasting your post, as objective and calm as you may be, you are dealing with an apologist. He has some tie or have some emotional or religious relationship with this group. Their historical egregious behavior is cause enough to doubt their motives. And the people supporting them are basically an attorney that makes money suing the CPS, and two or three BYU professors and affiliates.
This case is far from over, but no matter, the mothers have every responsibility to keep their daughters from being raped, and that was not done.
It is a shame that religious doctrine takes precedent over the safety and welfare of children.
right2bright on May 29, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Anybody can address anybody Renae, you know that.
As to the appeal to the Texas Supreme court, I doubt it would change my opinion unless new evidence comes to light. If the Supreme court overrules the appeals court, I have no idea what their basis would be. My understanding of rules of evidence is that NEW evidence generally cannot be introduced at this stage. CPS was required to provide BOTH of the lower courts whatever they had. But I’m not going to say I would not change my mind if some ground shaking new evidence was introduced and allowed. But at this point, as I understand court procedures, that is not likely to happen.
His is a fairly good article from AP, certainly not my favorite source, but take it for what it is.
Here are a bunch of search results narrowed pretty tight to the court ruling.
This site is tracking the case very close, they ARE pro-FLDS.
If you would like a link to the actual ruling, let me know and I’ll find it for you.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I do owe you an apology on that account and I am honestly sorry I called you a liar. I should not have done that and I do sincerely apologize.
Maxx on May 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]