I'm for the most part a liberal lurker on this site that rarely makes postings, but this issue about Mike Stark and O'Reilly stands out too much to resist a few remarks. Here's my take, folks.
- The point:
I want to say this as someone who has had his sense of security invaded by an intrusive lens turned on his home during stressful times. If this diary was intended to help rally the troops against that idiot O'Reilly, it failed miserably in that purpose.
The reaction I'm seeing is that a significant portion of Kossacks think this was over the edge. We're all intelligent people here, so that alone should be a warning sign that maybe this particular action was a mistake when it would have been wiser to take the high ground. I hope those objecting to those who are unhappy take that into consideration.
- Representation:
Stark's post does not represent the ownership and governance of the site. Only the front page does that. But the fact that it's been so heavily commented on and heavily recommended means that it does represent the community. Thankfully, there is a diary objecting to this action that is also highly recommended by the community. I'm thankful that many people here have the rationality to feel some qualms about what Mike did.
- Identification:
This was not journalism. Seriously, people. There was no point to this except to harass a low-quality human being who's been begging for some karma. It's no more journalism than screaming insults at someone on a street corner then putting that recording on the web.
There is a lot of content on a lot of blogs that involve actual research and investigation that warrants being called journalism. Don't insult that work by comparing this to that.
- Justification:
Stark's reasoning that Bill brought that on himself by making threats to get people to come to people's homes is quite valid. It's why, even though I have qualms about it, I don't feel sorry for him. He brought that on himself.
But that still doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. This idea was tactless and clumsy. At worst it will cost us an image of rationality in the sight of some viewers, and at best it will turn the volume of the noise machine up a notch. Many people will view this as an attempt at payback. Is that a good thing? Would they be wrong?
In this case, it reminded me of Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney's being a lesbian in a debate with Bush. Sometimes, when you fight fire with fire, you just make more fire.
- Gravity:
Finally, if you object to Stark's course of action (as do I, though mostly because I consider it tactless and clumsy), don't panic. What's the worst anyone is going to do? Complain and whine on Fox News? They're doing that already and won't stop until they feel like it. In the end, this will be a blip on the radar. Bill will get over it. We'll get over it. And eventually we'll move onto more important issues, which is more than we can say for him.
Thanks for reading my little diatribe. Good luck, all.