Comment of the Day: “First Friday Open Forum of September!” (‘Comment Moderation’ Thread)

[Tom Parker has issued a useful and perceptive Comment of the Day on a topic that has taken up too much space on Ethics Alarms lately: commenter behavior and my blog moderation practices.

A while back I predicted that “the most important election ever” would bring dedicated ideologues and partisan warriors to Ethics Alarms, and I could have predicted with similar accuracy that they would misbehave, requiring responses from me including admonitions, suspensions, limitations, probation, and banning. Sure enough, more commenters were banned in August than in any previous month in EA’s nearly 15 year history.

We have seen trolls, sealioning specialists, commenters here solely to discredit your host, and participants who qualified for “The Stupidity Rule.” Meanwhile, we have experienced repeated incursions by previously banned commenters, led by, ironically, the self-banned “A Friend,” previously EA’s resident New York Times apologist.

What readers don’t see are the first-time comments that never get out of moderation. Believe it or not, these are seldom critical comments or those that disagree with a post, unless the comment is non-substantive (“You are wrong!’). I ding insulting comments (you get some leeway in insulting me according to your status as a veteran and constructive commenter: at this point, Glenn Logan and Tim LeVier can get away with calling me “Satan”), vulgar comments, ungrammatical comments, racist, sexist and homophobic comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that are so factually wrong that I have little hope that the aspiring commenter can be trusted.

I never censor a comment from an accepted commenter, until that commenter’s banning, if that sad day comes. One famous (or infamous) commenter here, the legendary Ablative Meatshield, employed a style that mixed often abusive and obscene rhetoric with perceptive commentary. Imagine Newt Gingrich if he was addicted to adding “Eat a bag of dicks” to his trenchant observations. I allowed this to go on much too long in a misguided effort to support freedom of expression. I regret it. Blog moderation is hard; it is also an important part of defining what this space is. I continue to learn.]

Here is Tom Parker’s Comment of the Day on the comment moderation thread on yesterday’s open forum.

Continue reading

Thoughts On An Unethical Meme…

The meme above appeared this morning in Powerline’s usually amusing and occasionally brilliant “The Week in Pictures.” It was also used to illustrate “Tucker Carlson’s bad history,” an excellent essay by The Washington Examiner’s Dominic Greene on the same topic as the recent EA post about Tucker’s slobbering endorsement of a Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier.

Greene wrote in part,

The latest imbecile to visit Tucker’s virtual shed is Darryl Cooper. Cooper’s eccentric rambles through the thickets of history have won him virality on X. Unfortunately, the virality is akin to intellectual syphilis. Once you’ve convinced yourself that the truth is hidden, nay, occulted by dark forces, you can mask the worst symptoms of infection, but the mind rot is hard to cure. Cooper has convinced himself that Winston Churchill was a “terrorist” installed in power by “Zionists” and “financiers” so he could be the “chief villain” of World War II. Cooper also claims the Holocaust was an accident and that prewar Europe really did have what Hitler called a “Jewish problem,” rather than a problem with Jews.

Carlson introduced Cooper as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” Cooper blew it by admitting that he’d prepared for his interminable podcast series on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by reading six books and then recited a medley of baseless suppositions, false generalizations, and open “secrets” about the origins of World War II. Had Carlson attempted actual journalism, this tissue of lies would have disintegrated like cheap toilet paper. Instead, Carlson toggled between his customary facial expressions (frowning as if struck by a bolt of historiographical lightning, slack-jawed and mindblown as though he’s still following the Grateful Dead) and failed to question any of it.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the kingdom of the illiterate, Mr. Six-Books is a regular Arnold Toynbee. If your “research” skips primary documents and foreign languages but convinces you that Hitler was misunderstood (he wasn’t), that Churchill was a “terrorist” (he wasn’t), that the Germans invaded Poland without a plan for what to do with prisoners of war (they didn’t), and that the Holocaust was accidental (it wasn’t), you might have an ax to grind — perhaps a double-headed ax with runic symbols. But why is Tucker fawning over a poor man’s Pat Buchanan?

Continue reading

Oh-Oh. If a Journalist I Regard As Incompetent Just Wrote Something Almost Identical To What I Would Write, What Does That Say About Me?

Chris Cillizza alternately writes the obvious as if it is a new revelation, follows the mainstream media’s pro-Left lockstep, He now in in the opinion for profit business, unlike me, who is in the opinion for free business, and yes, I realize that this places my criticism of Cillizza’s acumen on shaky ground immediately.

He recently wrote a substack essay (his newsletter is called “Chris Crucial”….no, I’m not kidding) titled “What does Kamala Harris *actually* believe?” criticized the “She Isn’t What She Is” candidate for so flagrantly flip-flopping to pander to voters who might be inclined to oppose a radical progressive, which is what she had been literally up to this moment. The essay concludes,

“Harris staked out all of her more liberal policy positions when she thought that the path to the 2020 Democratic nomination would be to portray herself as a more electable Bernie Sanders. Now that she is the Democratic nominee, she is walking away from them because she needs to appeal to the electoral middle. I get it! But it also makes me wonder — and should make you wonder too — whether she actually believes in any sort of specific policies. Or whether everything is negotiable based on her political circumstances.”

Hasn’t anyone not in thrall to the Democratic Party no matter who or what it nominates figure that out about Harris? And yet this unremarkable analysis unleashed the whirlwind on poor Chris, resulting in that declaration of independence above. I have written almost the identical sentiments as each of Cillizza’s points on Ethics Alarms, usually in comments, some of the many times. The problem is that Cillizza is hack as well as an idiot. I wrote about him in one post,

“….journalists, as a group, just aren’t that sharp. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions: this is a field that has never attracted the best and the brightest, and it is a structural problem that has become a major problem in the age of the “new journalism,” which is advocacy journalism, as in unethical journalism. The people with the largest metaphorical megaphone lack the wisdom, acumen, education of critical thinking skills to justify their having it. Yet they really think they know best, and have the right and the duty to use a job that was supposed to be about informing the public to manipulate public opinion for what journalists think is “the greater good.” They don’t know what the greater good is. Most don’t know what “good” is.

Chris Cillizza isn’t just any journalist: he’s supposed to be one of the better ones. Horrible thought: he probably is. He’s an editor at CNN, and before that he wrote the daily political blog of The Washington Post, and was a regular writer for the Post on political issues as well as a frequent panelist on “Meet the Press.” He also has a long rap sheet on Ethics Alarms, despite the fact that I avoid following his regular forays into fake news, propaganda, and biased punditry. Who knows what I’ve missed.

What I haven’t missed is plenty, though. In a 2019 post, for example, Cillizza wrote that Secretary of State William Seward’s purchase of Alaska from Russia “didn’t work out too well,” which is why it is called “Seward’s Folly.” When I finished taping my skull back together, I wrote,

It is astounding that Cillizza could write this, and that CNN could allow it to be published. Never mind that Alaska has the largest oil field in North America. In Harvard historian Oscar Handlin’s book,”Chance Or Destiny: Turning Points In American History,” the purchase of Alaska is #5 out of ten. Written during the Cold War (I have an old copy of it right here, because unlike Chris Cillizza, I know something about American history, ’cause I read and stuff…), the book explains that had it not been for Seward’s prescient purchase, “the bases that today flank the northern  ocean would not have been American, pointing toward  Asia, but Russian, pointing toward the United States.  If our citizens, in the air age, still feel that distance from the potential enemy gives some security to their national  borders, it is in no small measure due to Mr. Seward’s  bargain.”.

That’s right, bargain. Alaska’s location is now  considered critical protection for the continental United States, and has been for about a hundred years. The state is uniquely positioned for supporting space surveillance and satellite control networks, tracking thousands of orbital objects on a daily basis, and providing access to refueling tankers and the Greenland ice sheet.

Did it ever occur to Cillizza to do a little research regarding Alaska, since he obvious knows less than nothing about it (knowing what isn’t true is less than nothing)? Nah. Nobody checks facts at CNN anyway.

Saying that the Alaska purchase is known today as “Seward’s Folly” is like saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire, or that Babe Ruth holds the career home run record. Try to keep up, Chris: the name “Seward’s Folly”—cartoonists drew Alaska as a worthless and uninhabitable iceberg, which is what most Americans, who were like Chris, though they had an excuse, it being the 19th Century and all—- was officially retired in 1896. That was when the Klondike Gold Rush brought over100,000 prospectors to Alaska , creating “boom towns,” businesses, and eventually, a new state.

The man is an idiot. In another infamous post, Cillizza put his name on a story headlined, “The New Sneaky Issue in the 2022 Election.” The “new issue”? Illegal immigration. In 2020, Cillizza claimed that President Trump’s use of the word “riots” to describe Black Lives Matter riots was racist. The Cillizza EA dossier is full of either throbbing progressive, anti-Trump bias, or disqualifying outbreaks of journalism malpractice, and yet there he is, sounding just like me.

Where’s a wood-chipper when you need one?

Wow. The Corrupt Journalism “Profession” Really Doesn’t Get That Ethics Thingy, Does It?

A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, wrote an op-ed for the Times’ arch rival the Washington Post that was so jaw-droppingly infuriating that it took me three tries to finish it. It had the Axis-speak headline “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America.” (I have a pay-wall-escape link for you.)

The publisher of one of the most influential fake news purveyors in the media thinks Donald Trump is planting the seeds of censorship by correctly, fairly, and invaluably having the guts to call what the current plague of “advocacy journalism” really is. His tagging of the mainstream media as an “enemy of the people” was similarly apt, and just as important.

At its core, Sultzberger’s indignant screed amounts to “How dare he?” That is a ludicrous stance for the publisher of a newspaper that has abused its mission openly by (among other things) stating on multiple occasions that it would slant its reporting against Donald Trump. “Fake news,” far from being an invitation to censor the press, is a necessary reminder not to trust the press as well as the rest of the mainstream media.

Indeed, the op-ed is, ironically, an excellent example of why this bunch is so untrustworthy. Althouse wrote today,

The #1 thing I didn’t say but wanted to say was that contrary to Sulzberger’s perverted argument, criticizing the press is not censorship. Criticizing the press is more speech. Trump has been criticizing the press. It is Trump’s antagonists who have pursued censorship, for many reasons, including his criticism of the press.

The news media was given great power by the First Amendment as well as the right to abuse it, which it has increasingly in recent years. Media censorship of the news that doesn’t support the narratives and policies favored by alleged journalists who lack the skills and intellect to responsively wield control over public knowledge is the real threat to democracy, not Donald Trump calling it what it is.

Althouse also quotes Glenn Reynolds, who wrote yesterday,

Well, if you guys would stop lying so much — *cough* Russian Collusion *cough* — and start reporting actual news *cough* Hunter’s laptop *cough* — maybe he wouldn’t have gotten traction with [“fake news”]. But in fact you’re the guys trying to shut down reporting and opinion that run against your chosen storylines, which are often false. And now that people have noticed you’re trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to pretend that we have healthy, normal institutions. We don’t. You aren’t.

I would have coughed a lot more, notably after Sulzberger’s repeated defense of “independent journalists.” Does he really think that anyone paying attention regards Times reporters and pundits as “independent”? Or is “independent” his deceitful way of making readers think he’s talking about objectivity?

I suspect the latter. Objectivity only intermittently creeps into the reporting of the Times, the Post, and…well, you can recite the list. Because you often can’t tell when that blessed event has occurred, the default attitude of any alert citizen has to be skepticism. That, Mr. Sulzberger, is why it is so important to call attention to fake news as a phenomenon and the frequency of its appearance in your media product and others. Its proliferation precludes trust.

And the news media has no one to blame for that but themselves.

First Friday Open Forum of September!

Last week, because of my training schedule, the Friday Forum was on a Thursday, so theoretically there ought to be more pent up ethics issues that Ethics Alarms has missed than usual. I bet there are more than usual for other reasons: as I predicted would happen as the Election to Save Democracy gets closer, EA has been set upon by single-purpose commenters whose objective is to discredit me and the site, usually by sealioning a single rebuttal to an essay critical of Harris, telling the truth about the rotting ethics of the Democratic Party, or defending Donald Trump against Axis smear attempts.

Typical was the exchange with a commenter on this post, who was determined to prove that Trump or his campaign using some video that was taken at an Arlington National Cemetery ceremony that he was invited to attend violated an “Army Rule.” When I told him that he needed to move on to another topic, as genuine and good faith commenters here do, he vanished, after wasting not just my time, but that of many commenters here as well.

No, I don’t believe that these are paid operatives; Ethics Alarms doesn’t have enough distribution or influence to be worth paying someone to do what the Trump-Deranged and knee-jerk progressives will do anyway for free.

I almost feel like I should apologize for the blog taking an obvious turn to substantially more political commentary this year, even more than in 2016 and 2020. Almost. I regard this as an unusually important ethics tipping point for the culture and the election. Trump is almost irrelevant (my opinion of the man, his character and his trustworthiness have only slightly improved since 2015): if the Axis strategy since Trump’s election in 2016 doesn’t finally result in the crushing rejection it deserves, all of those dire predictions about the fate of the U.S.A. will not be so hyperbolic after all.

But see if you can discuss something else….

FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings Are Out: Can You Guess Who’s Dead Last Again?

Of course it’s Harvard. My other alma mater, for which I worked as an administrator for several years, Georgetown, was ranked at #240 out of 251 schools. Harvard lapped the field however, with a perfect 0.00 score. Do read the report, rankings and details here, as depressing as they are regarding the ethics rot in higher education generally. At least I wasn’t disappointed or disillusioned about my two universities’ rankings and performance, since Ethics Alarms has covered the deterioration of both, not as extensively as FIRE, but enough to make it obvious to readers here (and me) that Harvard and Georgetown have busted ethics alarms.

Continue reading

Outrageous Hypocrite of the Month: Liz Cheney

It continues to amaze to me that there are (once) intelligent and objective people who regard Liz Cheney as anything but a raging, emotion-driven, warped political hack at this point. The Axis and the Trump-Deranged like her for the obvious reasons, but isn’t there some point where even a mouth-foaming Trump-Hater is too silly to take seriously? Cheney crashed through that DETOUR sign when she signed onto Nancy Pelosi’s “Get Trump!” star chamber “investigating” the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

Continue reading

I Hate to Say “I Told You So” Again Regarding What An Untrustworthy Demagogue Tucker Carlson Is, But I’m Saying It Again…

…because now Carlson is promoting a “historian” who says that Hitler was just trying to be kind when he tried to wipe out the Slavs and the Jews.

No, I am not exaggerating.

Back in May, I wrote about how despicable it was for Tucker Carlson, whom Ethics Alarms flagged as a self-promoting, unprincipled creep years ago, to interview Alex Jones (who claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax) as if the conspiracy peddler was a legitimate journalist. Ethics Alarms described Carlson as “a smug, narcissistic, ethics-challenged, unprincipled, Machiavellian demagogue who helps pollute our civic discourse rather than enhance it.” More:

“…since Fox News fired him (one more example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons), several publications have noted that Carlson’s focus has descended into cheap tabloid territory as he desperately seeks publicity, clicks and eyeballs. Of course he has. Carlson doesn’t need the money (he’s a trust fund kid and has a net worth estimated at $30 million); he could easily maintain whatever integrity he had and present serious, useful analysis from the conservative side on whatever platform he used as he waits for his Fox contract to run out. Nah, he wants fame and power.

Now, I can’t explain exactly how Carlson’s latest example of irresponsible journalism will help him in the power department, but his latest interview subject makes Alex Jones seem like Lowell Thomas. This week Carlson chose to interview Darryl Cooper, and introduced him as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” Best! Most honest! Cooper explained to Carlson’s audience that Winston Churchill was arguably “the chief villain of the Second World War” and “primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.” After all, Churchill could have made a separate peace with Adolf, who didn’t want to fight Great Britain, and maybe then the war would have peacefully concluded with Hitler taking over the rest of Europe and the U.S. never having to get involved at all!

Continue reading

Now THIS Is An Unethical Surgeon…

Don’t you just hate it when you’re under anesthesia for a serious operation, and while you’re unconscious your surgeon lets her 13-year-old daughter take over?

Graz University Hospital in Austria ( Graz is the regional capital of Styria, Austria’s second-largest state) released this apology: “The hospital’s management would like to express its utmost regret and extend its sincere apologies for this incident, and is working to fully clarify the matter.” The “matter” is this: After a 33-year-old man was flown to the hospital with serious head injuries following an accident, the female neurosurgeon, whose name has not been revealed so far, apparently allowed her 13-year-old daughter to scrub in. Maybe it was “take your daughter to work” day or something, but the aspiring distaff Doogie Howser was accused by a whistle-blowing member of the surgical team of actively taking part in the emergency surgery, including drilling a hole in the patient’s skull to relieve pressure from cranial bleeding.

Continue reading

Just To Be Clear: RayGun’s Apology Isn’t an Apology

It isn’t even a non-apology apology.

Littlemore than two weeks ago, both Curmie and I wrote about the ridiculous “RayGun,” aka. Rachel Gunn, who made a travesty of the Olympics breakdancing event (which was arguably a travesty from its inception anyway) and who may have rigged the Oceana competition to represent Australia in order to get a free trip to Paris in exchange for making an ass of herself.

Now, apparently sensing that her metaphorical 15 minutes of infamy was expiring, she’s in the news again for issuing what the ethically-inert news media is terming an “apology.” In an interview with the Australian current affairs show “The Project” the 37-year-old university lecturer said this week that she is “very sorry for the backlash that the [break-dancing] community has experienced” following her performance.

Continue reading